On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 05:01:20PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:00:55PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > On 3/8/24 14:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 02:48:04PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > > > On 3/8/24 14:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 09:20:23AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > > > > > On 3/7/24 16:43, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > > > > > > struct xspi_platform_data { > > > > > > > - u16 num_chipselect; > > > > > > > - u8 bits_per_word; > > > > > > > - struct spi_board_info *devices; > > > > > > > - u8 num_devices; > > > > > > > bool force_irq; > > > > > > > + u8 num_chipselect; > > > > > > > + u8 bits_per_word; > > > > > > > + u8 num_devices; > > > > > > > > > > > > all above have 32bits. It means on 64bit cpu you have 32bit gap here. > > > > > > > > > > > > + struct spi_board_info *devices; > > > > > > > > > > On all architectures? I mean do all 64-bit architecture ABIs _require_ > > > > > the pointer to be aligned at 8-byte boundary? Even if so, the struct > > > > > itself can be aligned on 4-byte boundary. > > > > > > > > I am not able to tell if toolchain enforce 8byte alignment by default/by > > > > setup on all 64bit systems. > > > > I am using pahole to check this which was recommended by Greg in past which > > > > reports gap in the middle. > > > > > > I see, thanks for explanation. > > > > > > Yes, it's likely that in some cases it will be a gap on 64-bit platforms, but > > > after this patch no gap on 32-bit. Do you still want me to reshuffle that as > > > you suggested? > > > > Yes I would prefer to do that change when you are doing cleanup. > > Can you give your tag? I mean for the other patch, not this one :-) > Then I prepare a new version with addressed comments > against last patch. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko