[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a01MzCTJnk_fuMgWsRBa3u_CEZegZqH37G7qLiquHWncA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:39:55 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
ALSA Development Mailing List <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: SOF: use __u32 instead of uint32_t in uapi headers
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:25 PM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
> struct snd_sof_blk_hdr {
> enum snd_sof_fw_blk_type type;
> - uint32_t size; /* bytes minus this header */
> - uint32_t offset; /* offset from base */
> + __u32 size; /* bytes minus this header */
> + __u32 offset; /* offset from base */
> } __packed;
>
On a related note: Using an 'enum' in an ABI structure is not portable
across architectures. This is probably fine in a UAPI as long as user
and kernel space agree on the size of an enum, but if the same
structure is used to talk to the firmware, it won't work on architectures
that have a different size for the first field.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists