Hi Rob,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:37 PM Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/15/22 4:10 AM, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > Il 15/03/22 07:10, Moudy Ho ha scritto:
> >> In order to allow multiple modules to operate MUTEX hardware through
> >> a common interfrace, a flexible index "mtk_mutex_table_index" needs to
> >> be added to replace original component ID so that like DDP and MDP
> >> can add their own MUTEX table settings independently.
> >>
> >> In addition, 4 generic interface "mtk_mutex_set_mod", "mtk_mutex_set_sof",
> >> "mtk_mutex_clear_mod" and "mtk_mutex_clear_sof" have been added, which is
> >> expected to replace the "mtk_mutex_add_comp" and "mtk_mutex_remove_comp"
> >> pair originally dedicated to DDP in the future.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Moudy Ho <moudy.ho@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
> >> @@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ struct mtk_mutex_data {
> >> const unsigned int *mutex_sof;
> >> const unsigned int mutex_mod_reg;
> >> const unsigned int mutex_sof_reg;
> >> + const unsigned long long *mutex_table_mod;
> >
> > Can we change this to u64 instead?
>
> Linux is still LP64, correct?
On 64-bit platforms, yes.
Note that this is about "long long", which is 64-bit on all Linux platforms.
But as the table seems to be used to store 2 32-bit values, it doesn't hurt
to be explicit and use "u64"? Or a struct with 2 "u32" values?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
