Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:61944 "EHLO mail-wg0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755594AbaHHKYt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 06:24:49 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id z12so5399039wgg.0 for ; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 03:24:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87d2cbz3wy.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> References: <1406628239-31322-1-git-send-email-michal.kazior@tieto.com> <87d2cbz3wy.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 12:24:48 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20140808_122452_727436_F74D5CCB) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: fix wmi service bitmap debug From: Michal Kazior To: Kalle Valo Cc: "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 8 August 2014 12:11, Kalle Valo wrote: > Michal Kazior writes: > >> The 10.x and main firmware branches have >> conflicting WMI service bitmap definitions. >> >> This also fixes WMI services parsing on big-endian >> hosts and changes debugfs output to be more human >> friendly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Kazior > > Based on Joe's suggestion, I'm planning to change the macro like below. > Are you ok with that? > > It actually adds a new checkpatch warning but I'm going to ignore that > for now: > > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h:177: ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parenthesis > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h > index 109ea684f88f..e70836586756 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h > @@ -174,46 +174,48 @@ enum wmi_main_service { > > static inline char *wmi_service_name(int service_id) > { > -#define SVCSTR(x) { case x: return #x; } > +#define SVCSTR(x) case x: return #x > + [...] This was the checkpatch warning I originally fixed by using { .. } :-) Anyway, I don't see a problem with the macro change you suggest. Apparently we're doomed to have a checkpatch warning either way unless we don't use a macro at all. Michał