On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My key question was about why we are using a field width of 10 implying a > 32-bit value, rather than a field width of 18 as suggested by the data type? > This shouldn't truncate the value, but if we are specifying the field width > for alignment, seems to me it is better to match the data type. %pR uses a field width of 10 (two for "0x", eight for the value) simply because the majority of resource values fit in 32 bits. Larger values extend the width, so it's not a question of truncating any data. But it's no fun to read memory addresses when most of them have eight extra leading zeros (the high 32-bits of a 64-bit value). I think the same applies here; most ACPI table addresses still fit in 32 bits. We *do* use a field width of 18 for the e820 table, even though many of those regions fit in 32 bits. But that's sort of an exception because it's a table where addresses above 4GB are pretty common. But at the end of the day, I guess I'm just stating my personal preferences and yours might be different. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
