On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 2:41 PM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > struct ad7944_adc {
> > > struct spi_device *spi;
> > > + enum ad7944_spi_mode spi_mode;
> > > /* Chip-specific timing specifications. */
> > > const struct ad7944_timing_spec *timing_spec;
> > > /* GPIO connected to CNV pin. */
> > > @@ -58,6 +75,9 @@ struct ad7944_adc {
> > > } sample __aligned(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN);
> > > };
> >
> > Have you run `pahole` to see if there is a better place for a new member?
>
> I know this matters for structures where we see lots of them, but do we actually
> care for one offs? Whilst it doesn't matter here I'd focus much more
> on readability and like parameter grouping for cases like this than wasting
> a few bytes.
This is _also_ true, but think more about cache line contamination.
Even not-so-important bytes may decrease the performance. In some
cases it's tolerable, in some it is not (high-speed ADC). In general I
assume that the developer has to understand many aspects of the
software and cache line contamination may be last but definitely not
least.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
