On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:25:51AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:39:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500
> > Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with
> >
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:25:51AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > What about the formatting and field widths ?
> >
> > ulong would probably be a lot saner than kio_addr_t and yet more type
> > obfuscation.
>
> I don't think anyone uses ioports > 32bit. Certainly i386 takes an int
> port as
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:39:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500
> Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with
> > more than 16 bits worth of IO ports (i.e. secondary busses on ppc64, etc).
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:39:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500
Olof Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with
more than 16 bits worth of IO ports (i.e. secondary busses on ppc64, etc).
What
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:25:51AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
What about the formatting and field widths ?
ulong would probably be a lot saner than kio_addr_t and yet more type
obfuscation.
I don't think anyone uses ioports 32bit. Certainly i386 takes an int
port as parameter to
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:25:51AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:39:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500
Olof Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with
more than 16
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500
Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with
> more than 16 bits worth of IO ports (i.e. secondary busses on ppc64, etc).
What about the formatting and field widths ?
ulong would probably
Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with
more than 16 bits worth of IO ports (i.e. secondary busses on ppc64, etc).
I've also gone through the drivers, changed the few occurrances of
ioaddr_t to kio_addr_t where relevant, and changed format strings for
Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with
more than 16 bits worth of IO ports (i.e. secondary busses on ppc64, etc).
I've also gone through the drivers, changed the few occurrances of
ioaddr_t to kio_addr_t where relevant, and changed format strings for
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500
Olof Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with
more than 16 bits worth of IO ports (i.e. secondary busses on ppc64, etc).
What about the formatting and field widths ?
ulong would probably be
10 matches
Mail list logo