On 2020-09-29 10:57 a.m., Alex Deucher wrote: >>> +#ifndef __VANGOGH_IP_OFFSET_H__ >>> +#define __VANGOGH_IP_OFFSET_H__ >>> + >>> +#define MAX_INSTANCE 8 >>> +#define MAX_SEGMENT 6 >> No. No "max". Use "num" instead, as: >> >> #define NUM_INSTANCE 8 >> #define NUM_SEGMENT 6 >> >> To mean, the _number_ of instances and the _number_ of >> segments. (Their count is a number.) >> >> A "maximum" (similarly "minimum") value is an _attainable_ value, >> i.e. something you can get, use, etc. But array indices are 0 to arraysize-1, >> and thus max instance can never be attained. >> >> It is the count, the number of instances (segments, wlg), >> not the maximum instance. The maximum instance is 7, >> the minimum instance is 0. Similarly for segments. > Valid point, but this file is shared across components so I'd like to > minimize the differences. > Is it possible to educate the organization? Is it possible for knowledge to flow backwards, i.e. from the Linux team back in? As a mathematician, this really, really bothers me. It leaves traces of badly named objects and new people reading it would pick this bad naming up, and experienced people would either be confused or find it incorrect. Let's fix this at the source. Regards, Luben _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
