On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 01:09:46AM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > 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.
Well, I don't have strong feelings here. Perhaps i915_addr_range is more generic and middle ground. Jani? > > Andi
