On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 01:47:09PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 13 Oct 2021, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 01:11:58PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> Three main ideas here: > >> > >> - vlv sideband only has the name "sideband" in common with the rest of > >> intel_sideband.[ch] > > > > I wouldn't put it like that. There are two actual sideband > > implementtions in that file: > > - vlv/chv iosf sideband (vlv_sideband) > > - lpt/wpt iosf sideband (intel_sbi) > > > > And the third thing in that file is the snb+ pcode mailbox stuff, > > which has nothing to do with sideband. > > Fair enough... but no opposition to the splitting out of vlv/chv iosf > sideband? vlv_sideband.[ch] like here? I'm fine with renaming too. > > I can follow up with lpt/wpt iosf split out (intel_sbi.[ch]?) and snb+ > pcode (intel_pcode.[ch]?). Yeah, I guess just full split is the cleanest. Those names seem OK to me. Or I suppose we could rename the intel_sbi stuff to lpt_sbi or something? Might not be worth the hassle. Adding a small comment to intel_sbi.c to document what it's for should be sufficient reminder. > I think we've just put all of them together way back when this was all > probably bundled in i915_drv.c or something... Yeah. I think the common thread was that you need to go through a mailbox, but the file name didn't really reflect that. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
