Re: [XEN PATCH v2] device_tree: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rules 8.2 and 8.3

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

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.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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