On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 3:41 AM ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> 於 2022年7月5日 週二 清晨5:52寫道：
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 9:27 AM ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > ChiYuan Huang <u0084500@xxxxxxxxx> 於 2022年7月4日 週一 上午11:16寫道：
> > > > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> 於 2022年7月1日 週五 下午6:05寫道：
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 4:23 AM cy_huang <u0084500@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > > > > + struct {
> > > > > > + u16 vals[RTQ6056_MAX_CHANNEL];
> > > > > > + int64_t timestamp;
> > > > > > + } data __aligned(8);
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm... alignment of this struct will be at least 4 bytes, but
> > > > > shouldn't we rather be sure that the timestamp member is aligned
> > > > > properly? Otherwise this seems fragile and dependent on
> > > > > RTQ6056_MAX_CHANNEL % 4 == 0.
> > > > >
> > > > Yap, from the 'max channel', it already guarantee this struct will be
> > > > aligned at lease 4.
> > > > Actually, It can be removed.
> >
> > I think for the safest side it should be given to the timestamp member. No?
> >
> Sorry, following your comment, Why to use 'align' for the timestamp member?
> the data member already guarantee 2 * 4 = 8 byte, then timestamp will
> be 8 byte aligned, right?
Today it's true, tomorrow it might be different. Imagine if this
driver will cover a new (version of) hardware and needs an additional
channel, how do you guarantee alignment in that case? So, current
approach is working, but fragile.
> what you mentioned is to put __aligned(8) only for timestamp.
Yes.
> I try to put aligned in two ways ( one is only for timestamp, another
> is the whole struct). the result is the same.
> From my thinking, in this case, the struct is already 8 byte aligned
> for timestamp member. don't you think to put 'aligned' is redundant?
No.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
