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

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Julien,

On 25/07/23 12:02, Julien Grall wrote:
> > -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.
If you refer to the rule 5.3 ("An identifier declared in an inner scope
shall not hide an identifier declared in an outer scope") then no,
it is not a violation because there is no hiding.
To my knowledge, this does not cause violations of any other MISRA rule.

However, I agree with you,
the parameter name 'device' is not the best choice.
I will propose a v2.

Regards
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)