From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (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 146D724111D; Thu, 17 Apr 2025 17:46:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744911987; cv=none; b=eZc7vAbKa7nL0B1QMwmWjZ4f0coycVaRkhnIcCdpqnXxFHLdKcqF4FjPr1yGz3pBxTqKbG2/qDJlDgI5ta9ZTR8FVLkCz1+ZNYW4sCxaDWKqu1N4Z3OfgDPZwjA5oum0Nl9cd6jeyJkTCCewh5NAdBwiEqYzMerhccaPUnPLulA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744911987; c=relaxed/simple; bh=46ukvaYcdhyKDeXS4wk7tC3dQ01qf4FGv/IJfYCeBMs=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OPjxPy6OWzzcIK8KrvVe759WrwGLvFSTEjfL0xHrP6dghfJA8nQAWBAvnyWqyz+388SkIurcfUxUhkeVCS7ATDVQTcyAp8K/CXA1zFN6yxn6T7aDpnKStfuZlnMSWHpay44N5thy6QUZT9YLFUC+pgjZtTsV4eU9KNZN/RR+vW0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Zdlf138pWz6L53m; Fri, 18 Apr 2025 01:44:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6369D140121; Fri, 18 Apr 2025 01:46:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.66) by frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Thu, 17 Apr 2025 19:46:21 +0200 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:46:20 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Andy Shevchenko CC: David Lechner , Jonathan Cameron , Nuno =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , Matthias Brugger , AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , Lars-Peter Clausen , Michael Hennerich , "Cosmin Tanislav" , Tomasz Duszynski , Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol , Andreas Klinger , Petre Rodan , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: align buffer for timestamp Message-ID: <20250417184620.00006ae6@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20250417-iio-more-timestamp-alignment-v1-0-eafac1e22318@baylibre.com> <20250417-iio-more-timestamp-alignment-v1-7-eafac1e22318@baylibre.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500011.china.huawei.com (7.191.174.215) To frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:00:05 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:52:39AM -0500, David Lechner wrote: > > Align the buffer used with iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp() to > > ensure the s64 timestamp is aligned to 8 bytes. > > Same question as per previous patch. > In this case I don't think we know the position of the timestamp so a structure would be misleading. The comment above the define certainly suggests it is variable.. /* * Maximum of 6 + 6 + 2 + 7 (for MPU9x50) = 21 round up to 24 and plus 8. * May be less if fewer channels are enabled, as long as the timestamp * remains 8 byte aligned */ #define INV_MPU6050_OUTPUT_DATA_SIZE 32