On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:13:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Catalin Marinas > <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:03:21PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >> On 2015/3/5 6:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > IMO, you really need to define phys_cpuid_t in a common place or people will > >> > forget that it may be 64-bit, because they'll only be looking at their arch. > >> > >> Since x86 and ARM64 are using different types for phys_cpuid_t, we need to > >> introduce something like following if define it in common place: > >> > >> in linux/acpi.h, > >> > >> #if defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_IA64) > >> typedef u32 phys_cpuid_t; > >> #define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID (phys_cpuid_t)(-1) > >> #else if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) > >> typedef u64 phys_cpuid_t; > >> #define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID INVALID_HWID > >> #endif > >> > >> I think it's awful, did I miss something? > > Well, you can define the type and PHYS_CPUID_INVALID in the arch > code and then do this in a common header: > > #ifndef PHYS_CPUID_INVALID > typedef u32 phys_cpuid_t; > #define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID (phys_cpuid_t)(-1) > #endif > > That would allow you to avoid the need to duplicate the > definitions where it is not necessary. It's fine by me. -- Catalin -- 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
