On 9/18/23 09:51, Joseph, Jithu wrote:
>
> On 9/18/2023 9:29 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
>> In this case it is not just about the bitfield itself nor the bit
>> allocation order but sharing the storage unit with another member, and to
>> further complicate things, members have different alignment requirement
>> too (32-bit aligned u8 followed by u32 bitfield).
>>
> I too verified that the size of the whole structure matches that of MSR 64 bits (8 bytes).
>
> Initially when IFS scan was added the all MSR structure members were bit-fields, later there was a suggestion to
> use basic C types if applicable during subsequent Array BIST patch series. I followed this approach with the current patch series .
>
> I will change the current series to use all bit-field MSR structures in v2, given mixing basic types and bitfields is a a source of confusion
That's the wrong direction. :)
What is more obviously correct. This:
struct {
u16 valid_chunks;
u16 total_chunks;
u8 error_code;
u8 rsvd1;
u8 rsvd2;
u8 rsvd3;
};
or this:
struct {
u16 valid_chunks;
u16 total_chunks;
u8 error_code;
u32 error_code :8;
u32 rsvd :24;
};
?
