Hi Marek,
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:39 AM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/17/19 11:22 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 1:06 AM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 3/11/19 10:41 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 1:56 AM <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rcar.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rcar.c
> >>>> @@ -152,14 +152,12 @@ struct rcar_pcie {
> >>>> struct rcar_msi msi;
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> -static void rcar_pci_write_reg(struct rcar_pcie *pcie, unsigned long val,
> >>>> - unsigned long reg)
> >>>> +static void rcar_pci_write_reg(struct rcar_pcie *pcie, u32 val, u32 reg)
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't unsigned int make more sense for reg?
> >>
> >> Isn't u32 more explicit ?
> >
> > It's just an offset in the register block, with a range much smaller than u32.
>
> We could use u16 ?
u16 may be more expensive on some processor architectures
(MIPS comes too mind, don't know about ARM).
> However, Bjorn's concern was that using unsigned long
> for registers was not recommended ;
Wasn't that comment meant for the size of the register values?
> how's unsigned int better ?
Basic rule "If you don't care about the size, use (unsigned) int"?
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
