From: Stephen Rothwell <redacted>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:05:11 +1100

Hi Dave,

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:09:01 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Well, in that case, this patch is actually correct without considering
the u64 change. The array is what lands in the registers of the pHyp
call, so strictly speaking, it's an array of unsigned long's (ie, 32-bit
on a 32-bit platform, 64-bit on a 64-bit platform), not an array of
u64's. This function being a wrapper on that pHyp call, it may as well
use the right type.

So, any response?

Please resubmit, I'll take another look :-)