On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 3:02 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> 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.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko