Hi, On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 09:19:24AM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 12:55:02PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Oct 2025, Matt Atwood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > reg_in_range_table is a useful function that is used in multiple places, > > > and will be needed for WA_BB implementation later. > > > > > > Let's move this function and i915_range struct to its own file, as we are > > > trying to move away from i915_utils files. > > > > > > v2: move functions to their own file > > > v3: use correct naming convention > > > > Okay, Message from the Department of Bikeshedding and Nitpicking. > > > > There's really nothing mmio specific about the functionality being > > abstracted. You have a range represented by two u32's in a struct, and a > > function to check if another u32 is within that range. > > > > The struct could just as well remain i915_range, the files could be > > i915_range.[ch], and the function could be, say, > > i915_range_table_contains(). IMO "mmio" makes it unnecessarily specific. > > hmm, I'm really sorry about that... That is my bad. I'm so bad with naming. > > I suggested mmio in the name because i915_range is way to generic. > The other extreme side. > > Perhaps i915_addr_range ?
If we use it only for mmio, why should we make it generic? If we want to keep things generic we could well use things from in range.h, as Jani has suggested in one of his reviews and add our function directly there. Andi
