Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000

["Bryan O'Donoghue" <pure.logic@nexus-software.ie>]

On 24/01/15 11:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Ong, Boon Leong
> <boon.leong.ong@intel.com> wrote:
>
>>> +static int imr_enabled(struct imr_regs *imr)
>> Do we want to make it inline perhaps since it is 1 liner?
>
> Since it is declared static I would even suggest the new name is_imr_enabled().

I think imr_is_enabled() is a better name. Every other function is imr_ 
prefixed.

>>> +
>>> +                      if ((imr_to_phys(imr.addr_lo) == base) &&
>>> +                          (imr_to_phys(imr.addr_hi) == max)) {
>> I think we need to take care of the size that has been fix-up here ...
>>
>>> +                              found = 1;
>>> +                              reg = i;
>
> According to your comment this line becomes redundant.
>

Ah but I still think though.

We eventually do an imr_write(reg, &imr); which I think reads better 
than imr_write(i, &imr);

--
BOD