> > Maybe just use 64BIT as the guard? Seems a tad more precise to me.
> >
> > Other than that, looks good to me:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Wasn't able to test this yet, though, sorry. I hope for tomorrow, but no promises.
>
> Ok, will guard like this in next version.
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> static inline void sd_ctrl_read64_rep(struct tmio_mmc_host *host, int addr,
> u64 *buf, int count)
> {
> ioread64_rep(host->ctl + (addr << host->bus_shift), buf, count);
> }
Hmm, I wonder if it is not acceptable in this case to guard the new code
block in tmio_mmc_transfer_data() with #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT. This will
remove the whole code. Your suggestion leaves some code as left overs
which might be confusing.
I found other traces in the kernel also protecting whole code blocks:
tty/serial/8250/8250_dw.c, line 230
mtd/nand/raw/cadence-nand-controller.c, line 1186
What do you think?
