[PATCH 6/8] iio: imu: adis16550: align buffers for timestamp

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 15:48:44 -0500
David Lechner <dlechner at baylibre.com> wrote:

> On 4/17/25 12:44 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 12:07:37 -0500
> > David Lechner <dlechner at baylibre.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 4/17/25 11:59 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> >>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:52:38AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:    
> >>>> Align the buffers used with iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp() to
> >>>> ensure the s64 timestamp is aligned to 8 bytes.
> >>>>
> >>>>  drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel.h | 2 +-
> >>>>  drivers/iio/imu/adis16550.c      | 2 +-    
> >>>
> >>> Looks like a stray squash of the two independent commits.    
> >>
> >> Oops, sure enough.
> >>  
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>     
> >>>>  	struct bmc150_accel_trigger triggers[BMC150_ACCEL_TRIGGERS];
> >>>>  	struct mutex mutex;
> >>>>  	u8 fifo_mode, watermark;
> >>>> -	s16 buffer[8];
> >>>> +	s16 buffer[8] __aligned(8);    
> >>>
> >>> As for the code, would it be possible to convert to actually use a sturcture
> >>> rather than an array?    
> >>
> >> I do personally prefer the struct pattern, but there are very many other drivers
> >> using this buffer pattern that I was not tempted to try to start converting them.  
> > 
> > For drivers like this one where there is no room for the timestamp
> > to sit earlier for minimal channels I think it is worth that conversion
> > if we are touching them anyway. 
> > 
> > Jonathan
> >   
> There is actually a lot more wrong in this driver, so will save that for a
> separate series.
> 
ok.  That is probably fair enough.
I'll not pick this up though given the smashing of 2 patches.

So this one will need a v2.

Jonathan