From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oi1-f174.google.com (mail-oi1-f174.google.com [209.85.167.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A87C47494 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2025 22:34:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745706858; cv=none; b=W4JJM2rk3Ya+F754bCtuVkfcPP3tCKm+fUMSpEmRgKa9vvNCzmzKa6wYrFOLKjokzaSSvM4EGSBgLYlZuwLuFLnh3oqZqYG3fg7xwnjfstf9yD4LQJIuut74ZDjRWabDs2uiqHSDq0T78iksEh8v87t8iO0t4E409XVDpWsdgDU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745706858; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KFP/OMt+pVNyA5FsCHR48Mx5Hg0N9JcRJgmsN3DujQs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=evJ+/g093vRJdiSqhZ5S0MHRqNx94LXehIDRPt+mpjGSddSbCRDQ16rHaXzn1dcQn2ZBYWddru+qM2ep/AWLjsgJjp42jZElRegLspozfpKphQWwhJnMCoSTSi6b0RWsK1C59kKAC4CWs2OxC7sKk5PSRTpXUaJMtAR/hVwdND0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=baylibre.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=baylibre.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=baylibre-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@baylibre-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=BNZzBz+y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=baylibre.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=baylibre.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=baylibre-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@baylibre-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="BNZzBz+y" Received: by mail-oi1-f174.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3fbc00143d6so3002225b6e.3 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:34:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=baylibre-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1745706853; x=1746311653; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:from :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iYVVUGhcXIwOLu06TILyWFwu4mq3jXrLLzPklRAXR6Q=; b=BNZzBz+yhzpzg/M0/JeYdSA0M4sh+kTyxVvRWshrqxAjCrGijFMxrmGJJGdiW74xnv /+bJ7Ygwl9HIAv8l66EUPeuxtMQmPUQD2vvswyh7vBam5dJivvAkGiG2S3SYe8ZwRugp w2h/uLtkmMelldCyBxVpJ+zS1Nwirr3Ic4+Od+5iCE4lU2TVwNaLhG1EiIgJgTUlAgtx meDP+mAh05TbInY7fBOpapiKmvnaEudqyde6/IsXCABRvsznGCv425fVO0kYpahhNITH LzcJO1/4P03/98IKsdO6ymloRoefOjEJTk4V48OTxreyAtFtxTYK6t45mf1MUQ6UCuOv c6zw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1745706853; x=1746311653; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:from :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iYVVUGhcXIwOLu06TILyWFwu4mq3jXrLLzPklRAXR6Q=; b=b8/QiUDpED5HY/HBdtfiywKJioNwJO2Ok9puirHc0Dc7llDTkIvbP3+nXJxlCyB8Wt j4aY0p7uPO2Etejd3yGYiZAv7ZzsvzOMxXp51LbSWYK1au6/g9EyynThVGEz8tuIQmuv cI4MnFIRqMrYNUUwiAqbZ+O6de1e7NoaUF1v8ZV+1L9oqdFxoVYEAqvcbbjzsXO+8yjJ 1yob2RePvDAQsIM+Q21u98ZeYA9R2v+nkYIgr5USFC8U56Dlu64RuaT5nuXtgEEPUPtR DS58OtKKbhEpSj00uZGbuPpwY2/Az2cJSqSZo3l9QLzq2VhlDhT60EawJFrxK4Q5fP6R 1urw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWNlCq/8KYTYGey9rA791GP4oleFJeh9zVwb8cij3HxsPFvfnz8VIAdBJUJBUWsIez/B/PekEUJfZA=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxaZtnfgvchr0viiX4642869yj0cj2+6vA2mTF04NeWC9W+Mw+Y 6UNkbEex6JJbtAVRebwLcBiK8+P6BIQxxb4p7Xl669/jdbeC4UsiZK91FNcruPs= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuwdhbZkenlXDAx/bD/xtawc68EfIg1WnSTr+nYXgWbeqbUwhZqVXnsj0FwLsx FKfCFT2fNn6d5R67dJLnVJNM/3Xkr3Lp52HLrjv7IG34e3753iCT7kzlY2x9g1F3mjPg5mU1jYx iyAGusiYvalRMOSSbHUuk/dzUlYBBcYBCmxMroMmjrWhMurbuV2H5lMFD8m6egwvwQ2vinVR3J1 GYXBV/O/ALk9KucDfYXIPFp+UF7vw54kdpkmKlstyH37p7DrkKBQMNU27I4fxnGFwyKnETgxsml 5X2+0SvTF5NixtZwKAo6K3IuLs9TFPFhoWhdCrJtfzLHg76UkShJN332I1ifNGqbyAK6ICsfRTZ 5FzkJnEPuIFRpza7ZVA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEWcdgjh8/VjhINgT8GfioFVGPqEFDg87O6EIU4BE5z/R9+CNVDT1w95ttosllom+MZY3JBMQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:338a:b0:3f9:3de3:c8de with SMTP id 5614622812f47-401f289161fmr3985703b6e.12.1745706853626; Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2600:8803:e7e4:1d00:96ff:7f79:37f3:5c67? ([2600:8803:e7e4:1d00:96ff:7f79:37f3:5c67]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5614622812f47-401ec977dafsm1329187b6e.41.2025.04.26.15.34.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8a57a332-c2a6-4825-a5f7-d765ea15bd6f@baylibre.com> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 17:34:10 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] iio: introduce IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS macros To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Nuno_S=C3=A1?= , Andy Shevchenko , Lars-Peter Clausen , Michael Hennerich , Eugen Hristev , Nicolas Ferre , Alexandre Belloni , Claudiu Beznea , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20250425-iio-introduce-iio_declare_buffer_with_ts-v3-0-f12df1bff248@baylibre.com> <20250425-iio-introduce-iio_declare_buffer_with_ts-v3-1-f12df1bff248@baylibre.com> <20250426123509.0b04f0f9@jic23-huawei> From: David Lechner Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20250426123509.0b04f0f9@jic23-huawei> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/26/25 6:35 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:08:43 -0500 > David Lechner wrote: > ... >> @@ -777,6 +779,42 @@ static inline void *iio_device_get_drvdata(const struct iio_dev *indio_dev) >> * them safe for use with non-coherent DMA. >> */ >> #define IIO_DMA_MINALIGN ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN >> + >> +#define __IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) \ >> + static_assert(count); \ > > Why do we care if count is 0? Or is intent to check if is constant? > If the thought is we don't care either way about 0 (as rather nonsensical) > and this will fail to compile if not constant, then perhaps a comment would > avoid future confusion? I would be inclined to just leave out the check. But yes, it is just checking that count is constant and we don't expect 0. > >> + type name[ALIGN((count), sizeof(s64) / sizeof(type)) + sizeof(s64) / sizeof(type)] >> + >> +/** >> + * IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS() - Declare a buffer with timestamp >> + * @type: element type of the buffer >> + * @name: identifier name of the buffer >> + * @count: number of elements in the buffer >> + * >> + * Declares a buffer that is safe to use with iio_push_to_buffer_with_ts(). In >> + * addition to allocating enough space for @count elements of @type, it also >> + * allocates space for a s64 timestamp at the end of the buffer and ensures >> + * proper alignment of the timestamp. >> + */ >> +#define IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) \ >> + __IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) __aligned(sizeof(s64)) >> + >> +/** >> + * IIO_DECLARE_DMA_BUFFER_WITH_TS() - Declare a DMA-aligned buffer with timestamp >> + * @type: element type of the buffer >> + * @name: identifier name of the buffer >> + * @count: number of elements in the buffer >> + * >> + * Same as IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(), but is uses __aligned(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN) >> + * to ensure that the buffer doesn't share cachelines with anything that comes >> + * before it in a struct. This should not be used for stack-allocated buffers >> + * as stack memory cannot generally be used for DMA. >> + */ >> +#define IIO_DECLARE_DMA_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) \ >> + __IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) __aligned(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN) >> + >> +static_assert(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN % sizeof(s64) == 0, > That message isn't super helpful if seen in a compile log as we aren't reading the code here > "IIO_DECLARE_DMA_BUFFER_WITH_TS() assumes that ... > >> + "macros above assume that IIO_DMA_MINALIGN also ensures s64 timestamp alignment"); >> + Seems we actually have an arch (openrisc) that triggers this [1]. This arch doesn't define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN so it falls back to: #define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN __alignof__(unsigned long long) Apparently this is only of those 32-bit arches that only does 4 byte alignment. >From the official docs [2]: Current OR32 implementations (OR1200) do not implement 8 byte alignment, but do require 4 byte alignment. Therefore the Application Binary Interface (chapter 16) uses 4 byte alignment for 8 byte types. Future extensions such as ORVDX64 may require natural alignment. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20250425-iio-introduce-iio_declare_buffer_with_ts-v3-0-f12df1bff248@baylibre.com/T/#m91e0332673438793ff76949037ff40a34765ca30 [2]: https://openrisc.io/or1k.html It looks like this could work (it compiles for me): __aligned(MAX(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN, sizeof(s64))) If that is OK we could leave out the static_assert(), unless we think there could be an arch with IIO_DMA_MINALIGN not a power of 2?!