From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Angel Iglesias <ang.iglesiasg@gmail.com>,
Andreas Klinger <ak@it-klinger.de>,
Benjamin Bara <bbara93@gmail.com>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] tools: iio: iio_generic_buffer ensure alignment
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:34:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230930173409.4fe38d94@jic23-huawei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e986b4562ca663e19ea30b81d15221c15bd87227.1695727471.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:26:07 +0300
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> The iio_generic_buffer can return garbage values when the total size of
> scan data is not a multiple of the largest element in the scan. This can be
> demonstrated by reading a scan, consisting, for example of one 4-byte and
> one 2-byte element, where the 4-byte element is first in the buffer.
>
> The IIO generic buffer code does not take into account the last two
> padding bytes that are needed to ensure that the 4-byte data for next
> scan is correctly aligned.
>
> Add the padding bytes required to align the next sample with the scan size.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
>
> ---
> I think the whole alignment code could be revised here, but I am unsure
> what kind of alignment is expected, and if it actually depends on the
> architecture. Anyways, I'll quote myself from another mail to explain
> how this patch handles things:
>
> > For non power of2 sizes, the alignment code will result strange alignments.
> > For example, scan consisting of two 6-byte elements would be packed -
> > meaning the second element would probably break the alignment rules by
> > starting from address '6'. I think that on most architectures the proper
> > access would require 2 padding bytes to be added at the end of the first
> > sample. Current code wouldn't do that.
>
> > If we allow only power of 2 sizes - I would expect a scan consisting of a
> > 8 byte element followed by a 16 byte element to be tightly packed. I'd
> > assume that for the 16 byte data, it'd be enough to ensure 8 byte alignment.
> > Current code would however add 8 bytes of padding at the end of the first
> > 8 byte element to make the 16 byte scan element to be aligned at 16 byte
> > address. To my uneducated mind this is not needed - but maybe I just don't
> > know what I am writing about :)
>
> Revision history
> v3 => v4:
> - drop extra print and TODO coment
> - add comment clarifying alignment sizes
> ---
> tools/iio/iio_generic_buffer.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/iio/iio_generic_buffer.c b/tools/iio/iio_generic_buffer.c
> index 44bbf80f0cfd..c07c49397b19 100644
> --- a/tools/iio/iio_generic_buffer.c
> +++ b/tools/iio/iio_generic_buffer.c
> @@ -54,9 +54,12 @@ enum autochan {
> static unsigned int size_from_channelarray(struct iio_channel_info *channels, int num_channels)
> {
> unsigned int bytes = 0;
> - int i = 0;
> + int i = 0, max = 0;
> + unsigned int misalignment;
>
> while (i < num_channels) {
> + if (channels[i].bytes > max)
> + max = channels[i].bytes;
> if (bytes % channels[i].bytes == 0)
> channels[i].location = bytes;
> else
> @@ -66,6 +69,19 @@ static unsigned int size_from_channelarray(struct iio_channel_info *channels, in
> bytes = channels[i].location + channels[i].bytes;
> i++;
> }
> + /*
> + * We wan't the data in next sample to also be properly aligned so
> + * we'll add padding at the end if needed.
> + *
> + * Please note, this code does ensure alignment to maximum channel
> + * size. It works only as long as the channel sizes are 1, 2, 4 or 8
> + * bytes. Also, on 32 bit platforms it might be enough to align also
> + * the 8 byte elements to 4 byte boundary - which this code is not
> + * doing.
Very much not! We need to present same data alignment to userspace
indpendent of what architecture is running.
It's annoyingly inconsistent how 8 byte elements are handled on 32 bit
architectures as some have optimized aligned access routines and others
will read as 2 32 bit fields. Hence we just stick to 8 byte value is
8 byte aligned which is always fine but wastes a bit of space on x86 32
bit - which I don't care about ;)
Please drop this last bit of the comment as we should just say what it
does, not conjecture what it might do!
> + */
> + misalignment = bytes % max;
> + if (misalignment)
> + bytes += max - misalignment;
>
> return bytes;
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-30 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-27 8:18 [PATCH v4 0/5] Support ROHM BM1390 pressure sensor Matti Vaittinen
2023-09-27 8:26 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] tools: iio: iio_generic_buffer ensure alignment Matti Vaittinen
2023-09-27 12:27 ` Andy Shevchenko
2023-09-27 12:32 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-09-30 16:34 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2023-10-02 7:33 ` Matti Vaittinen
2023-09-27 8:27 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] iio: improve doc for available_scan_mask Matti Vaittinen
2023-09-30 16:54 ` Jonathan Cameron
2023-09-27 8:27 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] dt-bindings: Add ROHM BM1390 pressure sensor Matti Vaittinen
2023-09-27 8:28 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] iio: pressure: Support ROHM BU1390 Matti Vaittinen
2023-09-27 8:28 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] MAINTAINERS: Add ROHM BM1390 Matti Vaittinen
2023-09-30 17:01 ` Jonathan Cameron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230930173409.4fe38d94@jic23-huawei \
--to=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@it-klinger.de \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ang.iglesiasg@gmail.com \
--cc=bbara93@gmail.com \
--cc=christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com \
--cc=mazziesaccount@gmail.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).