msaitoh@ wrote: > Is the following patch OK?
Looks good. > > (someone might claim we should add PRIxBUSADDRfoo, though) > > I prefer this. I wonder if it's really worth to prepare such macro on *all* ports to define size of "bus_addr_t" because it's opaque type to describe all possible bus addresses, per bus_space(9) API definitions. ds_addr member is "something that describes DMA address using bus_addr_t and it could be paddr_t on some hardware" so using explicit casts for debug on a specific machine (i.e. paddr_t on x86) seems reasonable for me. --- Izumi Tsutsui
