On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:53 PM Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:03:43PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:01:33PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 05:38:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 01:47:49PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: ... > > > > > struct dma_chan *txchan; > > > > > + u32 txburst; > > > > > struct dma_chan *rxchan; > > > > > + u32 rxburst; > > > > > > > > Leave u32 together, it may be optimal on 64-bit architectures where ABIs require padding. > > > > > > It's not like anyone cared about padding in this structure in the first place) > > > > I think I have been caring (to some extend). > > Well, If you have then instead of asking to rearrange just two members (which > by the way finely grouped by the Tx-Rx affiliation) why not sending a > patch, which would refactor the whole structure so to be optimal for the x64 > platforms? I don't really see why this gets very important for you seeing > Mark is Ok with this. My current commit follows the common driver design > including the DW SSI data members grouping. On the second thought I'll leave > it as is then. Again same issue here. What is really easy to do for you here, will become a burden and additional churn to anybody else. So, why not to minimize it in the first place? Same with comma in another patch. Sorry, I really don't get it. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
