>> Type typedef's are a pain when there is no real reason for them,
>> ie. for atomic types and spin locks there is a good reason, for simple
>> pointers there aren't.
>
> A bus address is not a pointer...
>
>> Addind yet another random typedef just makes the code even more
>> obfuscated. You will be able to do just as much damage with this new
>> type as you can do with unsigned long's.
>
> Obfuscation? If it's made mandatory right away I agree. If it's the
> wrong name, I agree. (kphysaddr_t is the wrong name). If it has the
> wrong semantics: i.e., it doesn't always hold a bus address, I agree.
> But if it does have a consistent meaning how can you call it
> obfuscation?
>
> Bear in mind that unsigned long is the *wrong* type (on x86 with 64-bit
> PCI), though that hasn't arrived yet. And char * is also the wrong
> type.
It looks like the AS/400 port will need 128-bit pointers.
(and a trap handler to set/clear the hidden 129th bit IMHO...)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/