On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22:39PM +0300, Fatih Yildirim wrote:
> Fix for checkpatch.pl warning:
> Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fatih Yildirim <yildirim.fatih@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> index 39138191a556..c62a494ed6bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.h
> @@ -498,20 +498,20 @@ struct hostif_mic_failure_request {
> #define TX_RATE_FIXED 5
>
> /* 11b rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_1M (u8)(10 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_2M (u8)(20 / 5) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_5M (u8)(55 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> -#define TX_RATE_11M (u8)(110 / 5) /* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_1M ((u8)(10 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_2M ((u8)(20 / 5)) /* 11b 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_5M ((u8)(55 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
> +#define TX_RATE_11M ((u8)(110 / 5)) /* 11g basic rate */
But these are not "complex macros" that need an extra () added to them,
right?
Checkpatch is a hint, it's not a code parser and can not always know
what is happening. With your knowledge of C, does this look like
something that needs to be "fixed"?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
