Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:38:47 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 15/15] ipu3-cio2: Add cio2-bridge to ipu3-cio2 driver |
| |
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 3:02 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/01/2021 12:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 11:12:35PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
...
> >> +#define NODE_SENSOR(_HID, _PROPS) \ > >> + ((const struct software_node) { \ > >> + .name = _HID, \ > >> + .properties = _PROPS, \ > >> + }) > >> + > >> +#define NODE_PORT(_PORT, _SENSOR_NODE) \ > >> + ((const struct software_node) { \ > >> + .name = _PORT, \ > >> + .parent = _SENSOR_NODE, \ > >> + }) > >> + > >> +#define NODE_ENDPOINT(_EP, _PORT, _PROPS) \ > >> + ((const struct software_node) { \ > >> + .name = _EP, \ > >> + .parent = _PORT, \ > >> + .properties = _PROPS, \ > >> + }) > > In all three I didn't get why you need outer parentheses. Without them it will > > be well defined compound literal and should work as is. > The code works fine, but checkpatch complains that macros with complex > values should be enclosed in parentheses. I guess now that I'm more > familiar with the code I'd call that a false-positive though, as nowhere > else in the kernel that I've seen encloses them the same way.
I guess it is yet another false positive from checkpatch. I would ignore its complaints.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |