From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>
To: "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
"device-drivers-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org"
<device-drivers-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org>,
"Hennerich, Michael" <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>,
Jon Brenner <jbrenner@taosinc.com>,
Manuel Stahl <manuel.stahl@iis.fraunhofer.de>
Subject: 64 bit event code. How to split up?
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:54:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E2948E7.7080908@cam.ac.uk> (raw)
Hi All,
Given Michael has already run out of space in our 32 bit event code I suggest
we bite the bullet and move over to a 64 bit one now. I doubt there is much
userspace code in place so this shouldn't be 'too' painful.
So to start the ball rolling, how about the following split.
The final will probably still be a macro of doom. Bitfields get a bit
confusing cross architectures. I 'think' the following should even
be fine of arm oabi (IIRC that has 4 byte alignment for structures).
The following avoids all the conditionals we currently have in the macro.
It costs us space, but we have more of that. Note we'll need to add
a NO_MOD modifier and add 1 to all the modifier codes. It should also
allow us to use enums for everything.
/**
* iio_event - general purpose event to userspace.
* @time: timestamp
* @chan: index of non differential channel
* @chan1: index of first end of differential channel
* @chan2: index of second end of differential channel
* @chan_type: an iio_chan_type (we currently have 15)
* @modifier: currently we interleave several types of these (axial, light).
* having this much space would allow us to relax that and lead to
* simpler code.
* @direction: currently only 3, but definitely want level versions as well.
* @type: event type (currently thresh, mag, roc). Can see we will have more
* of these.
*/
struct iio_event {
int64_t time;
union {
unsigned chan:32;
struct {
unsigned chan1:16;
unsigned chan2:16;
};
};
unsigned chan_type:8;
unsigned modifier:8;
unsigned direction:8;
unsigned type:8;
};
So the question is, is this rough and ready distribution of bits good
enough, or do we need more channel types for example at the cost of some
directions?
I'll hack some patches based on this together shortly so we can see what
other cleanups it allows.
Jonathan
next reply other threads:[~2011-07-22 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-22 9:54 Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2011-07-22 10:04 ` 64 bit event code. How to split up? Jonathan Cameron
2011-07-25 11:04 ` Michael Hennerich
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=4E2948E7.7080908@cam.ac.uk \
--to=jic23@cam.ac.uk \
--cc=Michael.Hennerich@analog.com \
--cc=device-drivers-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org \
--cc=jbrenner@taosinc.com \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manuel.stahl@iis.fraunhofer.de \
/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