Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-22 Thread Olof Johansson
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:25:51AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:39:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500 > > Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with > > >

Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-22 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:25:51AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > What about the formatting and field widths ? > > > > ulong would probably be a lot saner than kio_addr_t and yet more type > > obfuscation. > > I don't think anyone uses ioports > 32bit. Certainly i386 takes an int > port as par

Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-21 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:39:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500 > Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with > > more than 16 bits worth of IO ports (i.e. secondary busses on ppc64, etc).

Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t

2007-09-21 Thread Alan Cox
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500 Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with > more than 16 bits worth of IO ports (i.e. secondary busses on ppc64, etc). What about the formatting and field widths ? ulong would probably