On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:45:54AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:27:48AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 13 January 2017 at 11:22, Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 01:59:35PM +0800, miles.c...@mediatek.com wrote: > > >> From: Miles Chen <miles.c...@mediatek.com> > > >> > > >> Use phys_addr_t instead of unsigned long for the > > >> return value of __pa(), make code easy to understand. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Miles Chen <miles.c...@mediatek.com> > > > > > > This looks sensible to me. It's consistent with the types these > > > variables are compared against, and with the types of function > > > parameters these are passed as. > > > > > > > Indeed. But doesn't it clash with Laura's series? > > Good point. > > Yes, but only for the RHS of the assignment changing. This'll need to be > rebased atop of the arm64 for-next/core branch, or Catalin/Will might > fix it up when applying, perhaps?
Yeah, it's dead easy for me to fix up. Will
