Skip to contentSkip to conversation

staging: gdm72xx: enclose complex define statement

PATCH In review Jaime Arrocha 2 participants 3 messages Apr 21, 2015 1 message not in the archive Staging

lore
Share & tools
lore

Jaime Arrocha

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 staging: gdm72xx: enclose complex define statement

This patch fixes the warning found by checkpatch.pl:
ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses

Signed-off-by Jaime Arrocha <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h +2 -2
index 8ce544d..2b50ac6 100644
@@ -32,8 +32,8 @@
 #define BL_PID_MASK		0xffc0
 
 #define USB_DEVICE_BOOTLOADER(vid, pid)	\
-	{USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)},	\
-	{USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)}
+	({USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)},	\
+	{USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)})
 
 #define USB_DEVICE_CDC_DATA(vid, pid)	\
 	{USB_DEVICE_INTF((vid), (pid), USB_CLASS_CDC_DATA)}
Signature · 1 line
1.7.10.4
maintainer
#1 lore raw
Quoted 13 lines · Jaime Arrocha

This patch fixes the warning found by checkpatch.pl:
ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses

Signed-off-by Jaime Arrocha <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h +0 -0
index 8ce544d..2b50ac6 100644

drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h line 36

Quoted 7 lines
drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h +2 -2
@@ -32,8 +32,8 @@
 #define BL_PID_MASK		0xffc0
 
 #define USB_DEVICE_BOOTLOADER(vid, pid)	\
-	{USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)},	\
-	{USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)}
+	({USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)},	\
+	{USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)})

checkpatch isn't always correct. This is one such example.

Does this even compile?

A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]

maintainer
#3 lore raw
Quoted 30 lines · Jaime Arrocha

---- On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:40:15 +0000 Greg KH<[email protected]> wrote ----

Quoted 24 lines · Jaime Arrocha
Quoted 13 lines

This patch fixes the warning found by checkpatch.pl:
ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses

Signed-off-by Jaime Arrocha <[email protected]>

---

 drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h |    4 ++-- 
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h +0 -0
index 8ce544d..2b50ac6 100644

drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h line 36

Quoted 7 lines
drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h +2 -2
@@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ 
 #define BL_PID_MASK        0xffc0 
 
 #define USB_DEVICE_BOOTLOADER(vid, pid)    &#92; 
-    {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)},    &#92; 
-    {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)} 
+    ({USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD)},    &#92; 
+    {USB_DEVICE((vid), ((pid)&BL_PID_MASK)|B_DOWNLOAD|B_DIFF_DL_DRV)})

checkpatch isn't always correct. This is one such example.

Quoted 2 lines

Does this even compile?

Quoted 6 lines

Yes. It did. I compiled the module against 3.2.0-4-amd64 from Debian and 4.0.0 vanilla from kernel.org. One thing that I don't understand is this:

[jaime@hpsylinux staging]$ make -C /lib/modules/3.2.0-4-amd64/build M=$PWD/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/ modules
make: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-3.2.0-4-amd64'
Building modules, stage 2.
MODPOST 0 modules

That implies you didn't select the driver to be built in your .config file. Are you sure you did that?

Quoted 10 lines

make: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-3.2.0-4-amd64'
[jaime@hpsylinux staging]$ make -C /lib/modules/4.0.0/build M=$PWD/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/ modules
make: Entering directory `/home/jaime/Pprojects/linux_kernel/linux-4.0'
Building modules, stage 2.
MODPOST 0 modules
make: Leaving directory `/home/jaime/Pprojects/linux_kernel/linux-4.0'

MODPOST 0 modules? I get the same result without making the patch changes. To resolve this I'll test this on another machine.

I compiled the whole 4.0.0 kernel and got the image with no problems after making the patch changes.

if you touch the file, and do a 'make -j8' does the file rebuild? If not, then you didn't select the config option.

thanks,

greg k-h