[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZeYegxEF521ixMTs@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:18:27 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@...il.com>
Cc: jic23@...nel.org, lars@...afoo.de, ang.iglesiasg@...il.com,
mazziesaccount@...il.com, ak@...klinger.de,
petre.rodan@...dimension.ro, phil@...pberrypi.com, 579lpy@...il.com,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] iio: pressure: Add triggered buffer support for
BMP280 driver
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists