devicetree.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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;
>  }


  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).