[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/6] drm/i915: cleanup fixed-point wrappers naming

[Mahesh Kumar]

On Tuesday 13 June 2017 01:19 PM, Mahesh Kumar wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday 13 June 2017 01:08 PM, Lankhorst, Maarten wrote:
>> Mahesh Kumar schreef op di 13-06-2017 om 11:34 [+0530]:
>>> This patch make naming of fixed-point wrappers consistent
>>> operation_<any_post_operation>_<1st operand>_<2nd operand>
>>> also shorten the name for fixed_16_16 to fixed16
>>>
>>> s/u32_to_fixed_16_16/u32_to_fixed16
>>> s/fixed_16_16_to_u32/fixed16_to_u32
>>> s/fixed_16_16_to_u32_round_up/fixed16_to_u32_round_up
>>> s/min_fixed_16_16/min_fixed16
>>> s/max_fixed_16_16/max_fixed16
>>> s/mul_u32_fixed_16_16/mul_u32_fixed16
>>>
>>> always do division internal operation in 64 bits:
>>> s/fixed_16_16_div/div_fixed16
>>> s/fixed_16_16_div_64/div_fixed16
>>>
>>> Introduce Addition wrappers for fixed16
>>> add_fixed16 : takes 2 fixed_16_16_t variable & returns fixed16_16_t
>>> add_fixed16_u32 : takes fixed_16_16_t & u32 variable & returns
>>> fixed16_16_t
>> I think to make it readable, the additions should be done separately.
>>
>> mul_round_up_u32_fixed16 seems like it should use clamp_u64_to_fixed16,
In mul_round_up_u32_fixed16 we cann't use clamp_u64_to_fixed16 as this 
function returns u32, but o/p of clamp_u64_to_fixed16 is fixed_16_16_t

-Mahesh
>> perhaps others too. Maybe do it as a preparation patch so this patch
>> strictly does the renaming for review?
> Will break this patch to 3 individual patches.
> thanks for review :)
> -Mahesh
>