Hi Federico,
On 24/07/2023 09:40, Federico Serafini wrote:
Give a name to unnamed parameters thus addressing violations of
MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.2 ("Function types shall be in prototype form with
named parameters").
Keep consistency between parameter names and types used in function
declarations and the ones used in the corresponding function
definitions, thus addressing violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.3
("All declarations of an object or function shall use the same names
and type qualifiers").
No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.seraf...@bugseng.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- improved consistency in parameter renaming.
---
xen/common/device_tree.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
xen/include/xen/device_tree.h | 16 ++++++++--------
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/common/device_tree.c b/xen/common/device_tree.c
index 0677193ab3..d52531dc9f 100644
--- a/xen/common/device_tree.c
+++ b/xen/common/device_tree.c
@@ -85,11 +85,11 @@ struct dt_bus
unsigned int (*get_flags)(const __be32 *addr);
};
-void dt_get_range(const __be32 **cell, const struct dt_device_node *np,
+void dt_get_range(const __be32 **cellp, const struct dt_device_node *np,
u64 *address, u64 *size)
{
- *address = dt_next_cell(dt_n_addr_cells(np), cell);
- *size = dt_next_cell(dt_n_size_cells(np), cell);
+ *address = dt_next_cell(dt_n_addr_cells(np), cellp);
+ *size = dt_next_cell(dt_n_size_cells(np), cellp);
}
void dt_set_cell(__be32 **cellp, int size, u64 val)
@@ -993,9 +993,9 @@ int dt_device_get_paddr(const struct dt_device_node *dev,
unsigned int index,
}
int dt_for_each_range(const struct dt_device_node *dev,
- int (*cb)(const struct dt_device_node *,
+ int (*cb)(const struct dt_device_node *dev,
uint64_t addr, uint64_t length,
- void *),
+ void *data),
void *data)
{
const struct dt_device_node *parent = NULL;
@@ -1164,7 +1164,7 @@ unsigned int dt_number_of_irq(const struct dt_device_node
*device)
return (intlen / intsize);
}
-unsigned int dt_number_of_address(const struct dt_device_node *dev)
+unsigned int dt_number_of_address(const struct dt_device_node *device)
We have a structure called 'device', so wouldn't this result to violate
another MISRA rule because identifiers are re-used?
In any case, I would prefer if we keep the shorter version (i.e. 'dev')
as this is more common within device_tree.c. We can replace the other
'device' at a leisure pace.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
