On 2015/3/5 23:19, Catalin Marinas wrote: > 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. I will update the patch. Thanks Hanjun -- 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
