Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-22 Thread Olof Johansson
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 > >

Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-22 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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

Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-22 Thread Matthew Wilcox
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).

Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-22 Thread Matthew Wilcox
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

Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-22 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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

Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-22 Thread Olof Johansson
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

Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-21 Thread Alan Cox
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

[PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-21 Thread Olof Johansson
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

[PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-21 Thread Olof Johansson
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

Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-21 Thread Alan Cox
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