[PATCH 1/4] accel/ivpu: Fix FW API data alignment issues

[Jacek Lawrynowicz]

Hi,

On 02.02.2023 16:04, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> On 2/2/2023 2:21 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>> From: Andrzej Kacprowski <andrzej.kacprowski at linux.intel.com>
>>
>> FW API structures have been updated to fix misaligned
>> structure members.
>>
>> Also changed JSM message header format to account for
>> future improvements.
>>
>> Added explicit check for minimum supported JSM API version.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrzej Kacprowski <andrzej.kacprowski at linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka at linux.intel.com>
> 
> 
>>   /*
>>    * Job format.
>> @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ struct vpu_job_queue_entry {
>>       u64 root_page_table_update_counter; /**< Page tables update events counter */
>>       u64 preemption_buffer_address; /**< Address of the preemption buffer to use for this job */
>>       u64 preemption_buffer_size; /**< Size of the preemption buffer to use for this job */
>> -    u8 reserved[VPU_JOB_RESERVED_BYTES];
>> +    u8 reserved_0[VPU_JOB_RESERVED_BYTES];
> 
> This seems spurious, just adding "_0" to the name.  Seems like the majority of the changes are like this (although you have a _1 at the very end).  Are you anticipating adding additional reserved fields in the near future?
> 

These headers are our HW/FW interface and we (as a KMD team) do not have full control over them.
The FW team has its own conventions which could probably treated the same as some auto generated HW interface headers accepted as-is.
We could modify them on import but it would be harder then maintain them.
If this doesn't bug you too much I would prefer to leave them as-is, OK?

Regards,
Jacek