Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm72xx: enclose complex define statement

[Jaime Arrocha]

---- On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:40:15 +0000 Greg KH<gre...@linuxfoundation.org> 
wrote ---- 
 > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:11:51PM -0500, Jaime Arrocha wrote: 
 > > This patch fixes the warning found by checkpatch.pl: 
 > > ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses 
 > >  
 > > Signed-off-by: Jaime Arrocha <j...@kerneldev.net> 
 > > --- 
 > >  drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h |    4 ++-- 
 > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) 
 > >  
 > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h 
 > > b/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h 
 > > index 8ce544d..2b50ac6 100644 
 > > --- a/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h 
 > > +++ b/drivers/staging/gdm72xx/usb_ids.h 
 > > @@ -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. 
 >  
 > Does this even compile? 
 > 

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

Thank you for your time.

-Jaime

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel