Re: [PATCH 4/4] iio: buffer: fix timestamp alignment when quaternion in scan

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 09:42:03 -0600
David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 3/2/26 6:04 AM, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > On Sun, 2026-03-01 at 14:24 -0600, David Lechner wrote:  
> >> Fix timestamp alignment when a scan buffer contains an element larger
> >> than sizeof(int64_t). Currently s32 quaternions are the only such
> >> element, and the one driver that has this (hid-sensor-rotation) has a
> >> workaround in place already so this change does not affect it.
> >>
> >> Previously, we assumed that the timestamp would always be 8-byte aligned
> >> relative to the end of the scan buffer, but in the case of a scan buffer
> >> a 16-byte quaternion vector, scan_bytes == 32, but the timestamp needs
> >> to be placed at offset 16, not 24.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> To test this, I used hid-sensor-rotation minus the first patch in the
> >> series so that we can see that the timestamp actually moved to the
> >> correct location.
> >>
> >> Before this patch, the timestamp (8 bytes ending with "98 18") is in the
> >> wrong location.
> >>
> >> 00000000  6a 18 00 00 ac f3 ff ff  83 2d 00 00 02 d3 ff ff  |j........-......|
> >> 00000010  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  5a 17 a0 2a 73 cb 98 18  |........Z..*s...|
> >>
> >> 00000020  ad 17 00 00 6a f4 ff ff  35 2b 00 00 ca d0 ff ff  |....j...5+......|
> >> 00000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  2a a6 bb 30 73 cb 98 18  |........*..0s...|
> >>
> >> 00000040  92 1e 00 00 50 ec ff ff  ea c1 ff ff 78 f0 ff ff  |....P.......x...|
> >> 00000050  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  8f 3b a7 39 77 cb 98 18  |.........;.9w...|
> >>
> >> After this patch, timestamp is now in the correct location.
> >>
> >> 00000000  55 0f 00 00 dd 1f 00 00  af 0b 00 00 ec 3e 00 00  |U............>..|
> >> 00000010  c7 17 68 42 6d d0 98 18  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  |..hBm...........|
> >>
> >> 00000020  57 0e 00 00 c8 1f 00 00  d1 0e 00 00 42 3e 00 00  |W...........B>..|
> >> 00000030  56 a2 87 48 6d d0 98 18  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  |V..Hm...........|
> >>
> >> 00000040  a3 e2 ff ff d3 1b 00 00  0b c9 ff ff cc 20 00 00  |............. ..|
> >> 00000050  27 59 4d b3 72 d0 98 18  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  |'YM.r...........|
> >>
> >> I also tested this with a different driver not affected by this bug to
> >> make sure that the timestamp is still in the correct location for all
> >> other drivers.
> >> ---
> >>  include/linux/iio/buffer.h | 12 ++++++++++--
> >>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/iio/buffer.h b/include/linux/iio/buffer.h
> >> index d37f82678f71..ac19b39bdbe4 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/iio/buffer.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/iio/buffer.h
> >> @@ -34,8 +34,16 @@ static inline int iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> >>  	void *data, int64_t timestamp)
> >>  {
> >>  	if (ACCESS_PRIVATE(indio_dev, scan_timestamp)) {
> >> -		size_t ts_offset = indio_dev->scan_bytes / sizeof(int64_t) - 1;
> >> -		((int64_t *)data)[ts_offset] = timestamp;
> >> +		size_t ts_offset = indio_dev->scan_bytes -
> >> +			ACCESS_PRIVATE(indio_dev, largest_scan_element_size);  
> > 
> > Given that we're adding a new private member, maybe we could just directly cache the ts_offset
> > in iio_compute_scan_bytes()? Would make the code a bit easier to follow IMHO
> > 
> > - Nuno Sá  
> >>  
> 
> Clever. :-)
Ah. I should have read on!

J