On Tue 14 Jan 18:27 PST 2020, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:44:25AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 7:47 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > So I'd like to determine first if we really need this. Then if so, > > > either add a new global config option, and worst comes to worst > > > figure out a way to do it per driver. I don't think we'd need it > > > per driver. > > > > I really don't think we need to have a config option for some small > > alignment. Increasing the alignment unconditionally to 16 bytes won't > > hurt anybody. > > Since you are confident in that, then simply bumping it to 16 bytes > seems fine by me. > > > Now, whether there might be other firmware loaders that need even more > > alignment, that might be an interesting question, and if such an > > alignment would be _huge_ we might want to worry about actual memory > > waste. > > I can only envision waste being considered due to alignent for remote > proc folks, who I *doubt* use the built-in stuff given the large size of > their blobs... but since you never know, better poke. So I've CC'd them. > I've not heard of anyone using built-in firmware with remoteproc, but as you say firmware used with remoteproc is large. So I can't see there being a problem of potentially wasting 8 bytes... > > But 16-byte alignment for a fw blob? That's nothing. > > Fine by me if we are sure it won't break anything and we hear no > complaints by remote proc folks. > Go for it. Regards, Bjorn
