On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 2:59 PM Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. We can take it up with the internal teams that generate these files. Alex _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
