On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:47:47AM +0530, Kaaira Gupta wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:37:11PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:37:28PM +0530, Kaaira Gupta wrote: > > > Fix checkpatch.pl warning of 'macro argument reuse' in bcm2835-camera.h > > > by removing the macro and calling the function, written in macro in > > > bcm2835-camera.h, directly in bcm2835-camera.c > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kaaira Gupta <kgu...@es.iitr.ac.in> > > > --- > > > .../bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c | 28 +++++++++++++++---- > > > .../bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.h | 10 ------- > > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git > > > a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c > > > b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c > > > index 1ef31a984741..19b3ba80d0e7 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/bcm2835-camera/bcm2835-camera.c > > > @@ -919,9 +919,17 @@ static int vidioc_g_fmt_vid_cap(struct file *file, > > > void *priv, > > > else > > > f->fmt.pix.colorspace = V4L2_COLORSPACE_SMPTE170M; > > > f->fmt.pix.priv = 0; > > > - > > > - v4l2_dump_pix_format(1, bcm2835_v4l2_debug, &dev->v4l2_dev, &f->fmt.pix, > > > - __func__); > > > + v4l2_dbg(1, bcm2835_v4l2_debug, &dev->v4l2_dev, > > > + "%s: w %u h %u field %u pfmt 0x%x bpl %u sz_img %u colorspace > > > 0x%x priv %u\n", > > > + __func__, > > > + (&f->fmt.pix)->width, > > > + (&f->fmt.pix)->height, > > > + (&f->fmt.pix)->field, > > > + (&f->fmt.pix)->pixelformat, > > > + (&f->fmt.pix)->bytesperline, > > > + (&f->fmt.pix)->sizeimage, > > > + (&f->fmt.pix)->colorspace, > > > + (&f->fmt.pix)->priv); > > > > This is not as nice to look at as the original. Just ignore the > > warning. > > > > regards, > > dan carpenter > > > So, is this warning to be ignored from everywhere in every driver, as it > doesn't look good? And if yes, then why is it there in the first place?
Obviously the reason for the warning is a good idea. Do a google search for the dangers of c macros if you don't understand. But at the same time uniformity and clean code is nice so it's a matter of setting priorities. Checkpatch is just a Perl script and not the King of The World. We can ignore it if we want to. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
