On 27/11/17 04:28 PM, Christian König wrote: > Am 27.11.2017 um 21:56 schrieb Alex Deucher: >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Christian König >> <christian.koenig at amd.com> wrote: >>> Am 27.11.2017 um 21:01 schrieb Felix Kuehling: >>>> On 2017-11-27 02:37 PM, Koenig, Christian wrote: >>>>> And that is a clear NAK to this approach. >>>> Hi Christian, >>>> >>>> Do you have other objections than the style issues? If so, please >>>> explain. >>> >>> No, the technical aspect actually looks rather reasonable. >>> >>>> Please clarify, why this file needs to be treated differently from >>>> other >>>> files under include/asic_reg? All those files are auto-generated by HW >>>> teams. Fixing the coding style adds no value and makes future updates >>>> more complicated. >>> >>> We already got complains about that and most likely will need to fix the >>> rest as well. >> I'd like to stay as close as possible to the headers formats we are >> using internally across teams for consistency. > > To be honest I strongly disagree on that. The bad quality of the > internal AMD headers is the reason we had to basically have the VMHUB > code for Vega10 twice for example. At the very least the globals we use per ip block should be version specific. That way if you cscope/ctags around you can find the actual references and not collisions. Tom
