Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 15:23:24 +0300
From:   Fatih Yildirim <yildirim.fatih@gmail.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        gustavo@embeddedor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] staging: ks7010: Macros with complex values
Message-ID: <20210211122324.GA10415@TRWS9215.usr.ingenico.loc>
References: <20210211092239.10291-1-yildirim.fatih@gmail.com>
 <YCUAy1VhLV3lwa3H@kroah.com>
 <20210211105704.GA10351@TRWS9215.usr.ingenico.loc>
 <YCUQtJk1XMsBRGBz@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YCUQtJk1XMsBRGBz@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:10:44PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:57:04PM +0300, Fatih YILDIRIM wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02:51AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > 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@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  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
> > 
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > Thanks for your reply.
> > Actually, I'm following the Eudyptula Challenge and I'm at task 10.
> 
> First rule of that challenge is that you are not allowed to talk about
> it in public :)
> 
> That being said, you didn't answer any of my questions above :(
> 
> greg k-h

Ohh no, missed the rule. Sorry for that, I feel rookie :)
You are right, they are not complex macros.
Besides that, type cast operator doesn't have the highest precedence.
So, I think we can use enclosing paranthesis.

Thanks,
Fatih