powerpc/secvar: Use u64 in secvar_operations

There's no reason for secvar_operations to use uint64_t vs the more
common kernel type u64.

The types are compatible, but they require different printk format
strings which can lead to confusion.

Change all the secvar related routines to use u64.

Reviewed-by: Russell Currey <ruscur@russell.cc>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan <ajd@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Donnellan <ajd@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230210080401.345462-5-ajd@linux.ibm.com
This commit is contained in:
Michael Ellerman
2023-02-10 19:03:39 +11:00
parent c9fd295275
commit 53cea34b0a
4 changed files with 12 additions and 18 deletions

View File

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ out:
static ssize_t size_show(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr,
char *buf)
{
uint64_t dsize;
u64 dsize;
int rc;
rc = secvar_ops->get(kobj->name, strlen(kobj->name) + 1, NULL, &dsize);
@@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ static ssize_t data_read(struct file *filep, struct kobject *kobj,
struct bin_attribute *attr, char *buf, loff_t off,
size_t count)
{
uint64_t dsize;
char *data;
u64 dsize;
int rc;
rc = secvar_ops->get(kobj->name, strlen(kobj->name) + 1, NULL, &dsize);
@@ -166,9 +166,9 @@ out:
static int secvar_sysfs_load(void)
{
char *name;
uint64_t namesize = 0;
struct kobject *kobj;
u64 namesize = 0;
char *name;
int rc;
name = kzalloc(NAME_MAX_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);