From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.13]) (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 6704E1940A2 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 07:10:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729494631; cv=none; b=H2+n4ci2Si/bnBI8QIJA1XnpD8WoalF16FQmDA/wWpHKitzL+SDCTZ+Z7R2e20VRmpO4xXLSKpcyEUTA7+FtKYAlQ+H37GHAkTzGMY2sXwg0r5Ab2tuq7JUdlP7myoThaErTLSRxp/aYrU7hiNEC1/pCNKSzp4fq2t6/zv4hiBg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729494631; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Mhce0Jn3Ru1+L+F4i8gVuRYX97fHynrPbb2wT8WYaO0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Uvjg9DL3/OFaFsxCMIpkd0ul0pArcPoc/89BHCYapQGAtVHaqwz0godVfbtWrfZ9nllLked57dl4YTiBd33X77hHbjh4una12C05P96MtlroFL0mqvVC5WKpozZkeZsOe4o8Ep5LOm25KDqMJSjGQZ5iYs6b/SGVzHPuzH6f0XE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Tw7jSU+4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Tw7jSU+4" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1729494630; x=1761030630; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Mhce0Jn3Ru1+L+F4i8gVuRYX97fHynrPbb2wT8WYaO0=; b=Tw7jSU+4r1YEHPvsTZvxMW8Tl+4nLJncN4XTmloIAWRg4Lvx5EVR/xYX o6jJcAb8R/YlN3xiOLwCH6ykxDTxtQ6knkJcL+b9pNkCypOh8yNgwO7N0 4m3/BtCXPECa4hTVKWtD3bZuZYve6uXdSUQAW+XcPYQmC8SSyiTgsKTiK ho8nP+NVm2NqtPaWXHOT7RP+FLLhlIiDjTq37VLmBizsnOQOq6RnRjEWj xvNES78GAYfqNaS8ohLkDCJxpDADagPoM0Dh+1KmR64+zuzgWdqklPojc ibSehlGSGL7GdeHQldkOtMVLxWTGR7qT8BBc/NcHvXS0tXOphwGTHKAoB A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Va8IHPChTNaxiX5AkUFLOA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: R+qOr+SDRPmsXoEM1iz3jQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11231"; a="31825161" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,220,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="31825161" Received: from orviesa006.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.146]) by fmvoesa107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Oct 2024 00:10:29 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: QIr/F0naQ0SmonKgD0Qlyw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: FVtIGyD4Rt6285FF044qrw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,220,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="79595395" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.154]) by orviesa006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Oct 2024 00:10:28 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1t2mYb-00000005PAN-1UXf; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:10:25 +0300 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:10:25 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: replace s64 __aligned(8) with aligned_s64 Message-ID: References: <20241020180720.496327-1-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: <20241020180720.496327-1-jic23@kernel.org> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 07:07:20PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > From: Jonathan Cameron > > e4ca0e59c394 ("types: Complement the aligned types with signed 64-bit one") > introduced aligned_s64. Use it for all IIO accelerometer drivers. > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron > > --- > > I debated whether to split this up by driver by the time we've done all IIO > drivers that will be a very large number of trivial patches. > > The changes are minor enough that they shouldn't present much of a > backporting challenge if needed for future fixes etc. > > I'm find splitting them up if people prefer. > Next on my list is to look at adding runtime checks that the buffers > containing these timestamps are big enough but I want this out of the > way first. I agree on all your points. Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko