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

[Jeffrey Hugo]

On 2/3/2023 1:05 AM, Jacek Lawrynowicz wrote:
> 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?

Ah, these are pulled direct from the FW.  Fair enough.

Reviewed-by: Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo at quicinc.com>