On 04/01/2021 13:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 3:02 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
Will do so then
