On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > Quoting Jani Nikula (2018-11-15 12:01:24) >> No need to use a compound statement enclosed in parenthesis where a C99 >> compound literal will do. No functional changes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_fixed.h | 6 +----- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_fixed.h >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_fixed.h >> index 08316e50167a..927c59395569 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_fixed.h >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_fixed.h >> @@ -7,11 +7,7 @@ typedef struct { >> u32 val; >> } uint_fixed_16_16_t; >> >> -#define FP_16_16_MAX ({ \ >> - uint_fixed_16_16_t fp; \ >> - fp.val = UINT_MAX; \ >> - fp; \ >> -}) >> +#define FP_16_16_MAX ((uint_fixed_16_16_t){ .val = UINT_MAX }) > > Following the standard set by pgprot_t > > #define u16_16(x) ((u16_16_t){ .val = (x) }) > #define U16_16_MAX u16_16(U32_MAX)
I left that for follow-up, and pushed v2 of the series. I think the uint_fixed_16_16_t type name is a bit unwieldy, should we rename that while at it... BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx