[PATCH v6 4/6] lib/linear_ranges: Add linear_range_get_selector_high_array

[Amit Sunil Dhamne]

On 2/18/26 12:17 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 18/02/2026 03:45, Amit Sunil Dhamne wrote:
>>
>> On 2/16/26 5:58 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>> On 14/02/2026 05:12, Amit Sunil Dhamne via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>> From: Amit Sunil Dhamne <amitsd at google.com>
>
> // snip
>
>>>> --- a/lib/linear_ranges.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/linear_ranges.c
>>>> @@ -241,6 +241,42 @@ int linear_range_get_selector_high(const 
>>>> struct linear_range *r,
>>>>   }
>>>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(linear_range_get_selector_high);
>>>>   +/**
>>>> + * linear_range_get_selector_high_array - return linear range 
>>>> selector for value
>>>> + * @r:        pointer to array of linear ranges where selector is 
>>>> looked from
>>>> + * @ranges:    amount of ranges to scan from array
>>>> + * @val:    value for which the selector is searched
>>>> + * @selector:    address where found selector value is updated
>>>> + * @found:    flag to indicate that given value was in the range
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Scan array of ranges for selector for which range value matches 
>>>> given
>>>> + * input value. Value is matching if it is equal or higher than 
>>>> given value
>>>> + * If given value is found to be in a range scanning is stopped 
>>>> and @found is
>>>> + * set true. If a range with values greater than given value is found
>>>> + * but the range min is being greater than given value, then the 
>>>> range's
>>>> + * lowest selector is updated to @selector and scanning is stopped.
>>>
>>> Is there a reason why the scanning is stopped here? What ensures 
>>> that the rest of the ranges wouldn't contain a better match?
>>>
>>> The logic is now different from the 
>>> linear_range_get_selector_low_array(), and I would like to 
>>> understand why? It'd be nice if these APIs were 'symmetric' to avoid 
>>> confusion. Hence, I would like to know rationale behind making them 
>>> different.
>>
>>
>> The rationale for this being asymmetric is to find the tightest upper 
>> bound for `value` < minimum value across the linear range array.
>>
>> To better illustrate this with an example. I have 2 entries in the 
>> linear range array [ [4, 8], [11, 15] ]. Let's assume I pass a value 
>> of "2".
>>
>> Based on my current approach, the call to get_selector_high() would 
>> successfully return with `found`=false and a selector value 
>> corresponding to "4".
>>
>> However, if I continued to search, I would end up the selector 
>> corresponding to "11". A selector corresponding to "4" is much 
>> closer/ tighter than "2".
>>
>> For values higher than the highest value in any range, this would 
>> keep iterating and end up returning an -EINVAL.
>>
>> For in range values this would work as expected.
>>
>> This implementation assumes that the linear ranges are provided in 
>> sorted order, an assumption that I believe already underlies the 
>> existing *_low_array() logic.
>
> Ah. I think ... I didn't think. :)
>
> It definitely makes sense to stop scanning if the range_min already 
> was greater than the given target value. Thanks for the patience and 
> for adding this missing piece :)
>
> Reviewed-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount at gmail.com>


Thanks for the review! :)


Regards,

Amit

>
>
> ---
> Matti Vaittinen
> Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
> Oulu Finland
>
> ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~