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
