[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250417184620.00006ae6@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:46:20 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
CC: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Jonathan Cameron
<jic23@...nel.org>, Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Matthias
Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen
<lars@...afoo.de>, Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, "Cosmin
Tanislav" <cosmin.tanislav@...log.com>, Tomasz Duszynski
<tduszyns@...il.com>, Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol
<jean-baptiste.maneyrol@....com>, Andreas Klinger <ak@...klinger.de>, Petre
Rodan <petre.rodan@...dimension.ro>, <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] iio: imu: inv_mpu6050: align buffer for timestamp
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 20:00:05 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists