On 03/10/2016 09:05, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
On pe, 2016-09-30 at 19:08 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 06:48:48PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
+static int mmio_reg_cmp(const void *key, const void *elt)
+{
+ u32 offset = (u32)(unsigned long)key;
+ i915_reg_t *reg = (i915_reg_t *)elt;
+
+ if (offset < i915_mmio_reg_offset(*reg))
+ return -1;
+ else if (offset > i915_mmio_reg_offset(*reg))
+ return 1;
+ else
+ return 0;
There's no issue with using
return offset - i915_mmio_reg_offset(*reg)
here.
Why not?
+ reg = bsearch((void *)(unsigned long)offset,
+ (const void *)gen8_shadowed_regs,
+ ARRAY_SIZE(gen8_shadowed_regs),
+ sizeof(i915_reg_t),
+ mmio_reg_cmp);
+
+ return reg;
Or just return bseearch() ? (Probably like this for easing future
patches.)
Suggested that too, but obviously he has something in mind.
It becomes a direct return in a following patch. It is just a virtue of
me wanting to split out the series a lot for easier review, and then not
picking up all relevant places to tidy when acting on review feedback.
But this one as I said happens in a following patch.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
