From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.8]) (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 0D94078B53; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:18:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709579915; cv=none; b=KHXFTH7oLJelWIOjOc5Ybb9Uw+XPZNlrV5RzvkzFp2shvetRI4ku8M8w+/boyJmjlrpQZ5Zid50+wUWIlg/8xDTXF2M4OUWjf4nKEQYKkjhSDK9BFH3Gj9gtltuVlvNT5RYtawyMuxRdMxN5hq/zFRzZDe05qzG6/pH1xlQLD9E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709579915; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OidSgRgOiBrajJB9JvcNktFUgtOc4+6/4HD0banv1Dk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BAviliRMUYgdr6m1ZXPnc5oSR9arx+0rn7lk3BeRvNfF+YNVoeNANOEiq7UV+6gDthUaP7Po9oFqXJ2COwiWE7mm6MGjE3ExA4o7y5VSa8RB/0Q6zhwPeVBbeg0SXgTnmiDstO/pkSvpf+QxLkiOrJVKmq8peVK8hgZv0b45Vmc= 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=cJ9ZT3lJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 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="cJ9ZT3lJ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1709579914; x=1741115914; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=OidSgRgOiBrajJB9JvcNktFUgtOc4+6/4HD0banv1Dk=; b=cJ9ZT3lJVOYtqr1vNbPQMyyO7KGnfBOlo8pj1/3LM6PZuUP+I9J2S8sc XaiwENFzcsVachRE+XbBI49vMUTltEPllibPbEBo/XTa4Gh9TKlAjXTLE j+t7Ygw5+WCrHrmGmo+facz7H4/jX47NuRKnwp+9mQ51xjUIt5aJYamIm ph4/xsPrZS5steky3sSLW2rZBS8+Gg7aAUnBmR8BjOrWpvIykisydrgN7 Z+qVBz6EQsgAFd2CqeTvHGkB5s8Kk4pVVqu8WMm/TpvVpFs4pSgz+GUWK unU7fibu34eZ+iA+r9LtUbA5tMcwQSbapAftkNgs3tHom3mCLcOBI1OiF g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11003"; a="21629934" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,204,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="21629934" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Mar 2024 11:18:33 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11003"; a="914113473" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,204,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="914113473" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Mar 2024 11:18:30 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rhDpT-00000009nXY-35rR; Mon, 04 Mar 2024 21:18:27 +0200 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:18:27 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Vasileios Amoiridis Cc: jic23@kernel.org, lars@metafoo.de, ang.iglesiasg@gmail.com, mazziesaccount@gmail.com, ak@it-klinger.de, petre.rodan@subdimension.ro, phil@raspberrypi.com, 579lpy@gmail.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] iio: pressure: Add triggered buffer support for BMP280 driver Message-ID: References: <20240303165300.468011-1-vassilisamir@gmail.com> <20240303165300.468011-5-vassilisamir@gmail.com> <20240304190838.GA4431@vamoiridPC> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240304190838.GA4431@vamoiridPC> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 08:08:38PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 01:52:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 05:53:00PM +0100, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote: ... > > > + struct { > > > + s32 temperature; > > > + u32 pressure; > > > + u32 humidity; > > > > > + s64 timestamp; > > > > Shouldn't this be aligned properly? > > I saw that in some drivers it was added and in some it was not. What is the > difference of aligning just the timestamp of the kernel? You can count yourself. With provided structure as above there is a high probability of misaligned timeout field. The latter has to be aligned on 8 bytes. > > > + } iio_buffer; -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko