On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:24?PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr at kernel.org> wrote:> > Maybe I spoke too soon, it's actually pretty painful to keep 32-bit > compatibility, even though it would be nice for testing purposes. > > I'll paste the diff to fix it below, I think that makes it obvious why I say > that. > > Instead, we should really just depend on CONFIG_64BIT (which implies > ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT).Yeah, it isn't great. If it were just that, maybe it it is worth it (and a `DmaAddress` newtype, not just a typedef, could perhaps be nice anyway?), but if you think it will become increasingly painful later, then it may be best to focus on what matters. It is unlikely there is going to be actual users on a 32-bit platform, right? Cheers, Miguel
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:31?PM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis at gmail.com> wrote:> > and a `DmaAddress` > newtype, not just a typedef, could perhaps be nice anyway?The one from your linked patch is not a newtype though, so I guess there is a reason for that. Cheers, Miguel
On Thu Aug 28, 2025 at 9:36 PM CEST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:31?PM Miguel Ojeda > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> and a `DmaAddress` >> newtype, not just a typedef, could perhaps be nice anyway? > > The one from your linked patch is not a newtype though, so I guess > there is a reason for that.No specific reason, I didn't see a lot of value in a newtype in the first place, depending on you answer in the other thread, may we just found some value. :)