Re: [PATCH v3] drm/i915:move and rename reg_in_range_table

[Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>]

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 <matthew.s.atwood@intel.com> 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