From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4D2523E229 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2025 09:16:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744017379; cv=none; b=p9R2jv3oDb1X9gyhzV37r/QqidP5Yae6O+7CZC00KY1tThFKqm9oIJ72z+XfsvPA7+0FGESGPbhv1VaPLDuHqOmyT+K9L2TFa4WCUafphhjb2BB58jR2yEzPldGQIkJ+CQZFe/H5uEJyiKZkmncVL/H6Tr3Ys4jwfuPtH1N40ps= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744017379; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lOGNzd7IgLUxLT6JzP1LxQjTS39TGMSy8OIgl8J+77U=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OeuvtryDNJFwTzHlIgNb6nMTwJ3bM4rQldD/uU81F/0W0Z3+YSAqfiha6NJ2owRsNL7vg4/TN5351O8+hkCB1RdMLK3yN7XJ+GMcGN9ZTaB5b0GlJ2lXE/iWbw3pb0OeV7NJKNvI7flT9CX9l7I9p0dHJuI9qkdRvXQTYn9WtTw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Zz9aFQVqTnawcpDtuA3fNg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 3xQW5//pTZCK5pftXadPww== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11396"; a="45529837" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,194,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="45529837" Received: from fmviesa009.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.149]) by orvoesa110.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Apr 2025 02:16:16 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: IN4LQFufRqma4B035QZBIQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: TV+Ero6yRSquWPVmdstsvA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,193,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="128767635" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.58]) by fmviesa009.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Apr 2025 02:16:14 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1u1iaS-0000000A12X-0FEa; Mon, 07 Apr 2025 12:16:12 +0300 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 12:16:11 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, David Lechner , Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , Jonathan Cameron Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/20] iio: adc: ad7266: Fix potential timestamp alignment issue. Message-ID: References: <20250406172001.2167607-1-jic23@kernel.org> <20250406172001.2167607-2-jic23@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250406172001.2167607-2-jic23@kernel.org> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Sun, Apr 06, 2025 at 06:19:42PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > From: Jonathan Cameron > > On architectures where an s64 is only aligned to 32 bits insufficient 32-bit ? > padding would be left between the earlier elements and the timestamp. > Use aligned_s64 to enforce the correct placement and ensure the > storage is large enough. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko