On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:43:32AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Mon 2024-08-26 16:17:52, Ira Weiny wrote: > > Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > But I could live with all other variants, except for %pn mentioned below. I believe %r is also no go as we most likely get a complier warning. ... > > Am I missing your point somehow? I considered cramming a struct range into a > > struct resource to let resource_string() process the data. But that would > > involve creating a new IORESOURCE_* flag (not ideal) and also does not allow > > for the larger u64 data in struct range should this be a 32 bit physical > > address config. > > This would be nasty. I believe that this is not what Andy meant. You are right, this is not what I meant. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
