Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jniethe5@gmail.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] powerpc: Cleanup use of 'struct ppc_inst'
In-Reply-To: <0c2b2eb4-f58d-9ec3-4b98-af22cef188e2@csgroup.eu>
References: <cover.1621516826.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
 <87r1h3tx3a.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
 <0c2b2eb4-f58d-9ec3-4b98-af22cef188e2@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 23:05:46 +1000
Message-ID: <87eed2rmc5.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> writes:
> Le 15/06/2021 =C3=A0 09:18, Michael Ellerman a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> writes:
>>> This series is a cleanup of the use of 'struct ppc_inst'.
>>>
>>> A confusion is made between internal representation of powerpc
>>> instructions with 'struct ppc_inst' and in-memory code which is
>>> and will always be an array of 'unsigned int'.
>>=20
>> Why don't we use u32 *, to make it even more explicit what the expected
>> size is?
>>=20
>
> I guess that's historical, we could use u32 *

Yeah I think it is historical, we just never thought about it much.

> We can convert it incrementaly maybe ?

I've still got this series in next-test, so I'll go through it and
change any uses of unsigned int * to u32 *, and then we can do another
pass later to change the remaining cases.

cheers