Hi Marek,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 4:20 AM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/18/19 9:19 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > 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).
>
> On armv8a, none.
>
> >> 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"?
>
> This only applies to the $shift variable, yes ? The rest are u32 since
> those contain actual values read/written into the registers.
There is no "shift" variable. "reg" is a register offset, not an actual register
value.
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
