On Thu, 16 Oct 2025, Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Lots of bikeshedding here, but in the end just get it merged with whatever naming and move on? BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
