Hello, On Friday, 24 November 2017 20:40:57 EET Kieran Bingham wrote: > Hi Eugeniu, > > Thankyou for the patch, > > Laurent - Any comments on this? Otherwise I'll bundle this in with my > suspend/resume patch for a pull request. > > On 20/08/17 13:40, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > From: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cppcheck v1.81 complains that the parameter names of certain vsp1 > > functions don't match between declaration and definition. Fix this. > > No functional change is confirmed by the empty delta between the > > disassembled object files before and after the change. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_entity.h | 5 +++-- > > drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_hgo.h | 2 +- > > drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_hgt.h | 2 +- > > drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_uds.h | 2 +- > > 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_entity.h > > b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_entity.h index > > c169a060b6d2..1087d7e5c126 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_entity.h > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_entity.h > > @@ -161,7 +161,8 @@ int vsp1_subdev_enum_mbus_code(struct v4l2_subdev > > *subdev, > > int vsp1_subdev_enum_frame_size(struct v4l2_subdev *subdev, > > struct v4l2_subdev_pad_config *cfg, > > struct v4l2_subdev_frame_size_enum *fse, > > - unsigned int min_w, unsigned int min_h, > > - unsigned int max_w, unsigned int max_h); > > + unsigned int min_width, unsigned int min_height, > > + unsigned int max_width, > > + unsigned int max_height); > > This is fine. > > > #endif /* __VSP1_ENTITY_H__ */ > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_hgo.h > > b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_hgo.h index c6c0b7a80e0c..76a9cf97b9d3 > > 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_hgo.h > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_hgo.h > > @@ -40,6 +40,6 @@ static inline struct vsp1_hgo *to_hgo(struct v4l2_subdev > > *subdev)> > > } > > > > struct vsp1_hgo *vsp1_hgo_create(struct vsp1_device *vsp1); > > > > -void vsp1_hgo_frame_end(struct vsp1_entity *hgo); > > +void vsp1_hgo_frame_end(struct vsp1_entity *entity); > > I was going to say: We know the object is an entity by it's type. Isn't hgo > more descriptive for it's name ? > > However to answer my own question - The implementation function goes on to > define a struct vsp1_hgo *hgo, so no ... the Entity object shouldn't be hgo. And that's exactly why there's a difference between the declaration and implementation :-) Naming the parameter hgo in the declaration makes it clear to the reader what entity is expected. The parameter is then named entity in the function definition to allow for the vsp1_hgo *hgo local variable. Is the mismatch a real issue ? I don't think the kernel coding style mandates parameter names to be identical between function declaration and definition. > So this looks reasonable to me, and the same logic applies to the other > instances. > > #endif /* __VSP1_HGO_H__ */ > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_hgt.h > > b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_hgt.h index 83f2e130942a..37139d54b6c8 > > 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_hgt.h > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_hgt.h > > @@ -37,6 +37,6 @@ static inline struct vsp1_hgt *to_hgt(struct v4l2_subdev > > *subdev)> > > } > > > > struct vsp1_hgt *vsp1_hgt_create(struct vsp1_device *vsp1); > > > > -void vsp1_hgt_frame_end(struct vsp1_entity *hgt); > > +void vsp1_hgt_frame_end(struct vsp1_entity *entity); > > > > #endif /* __VSP1_HGT_H__ */ > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_uds.h > > b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_uds.h index 7bf3cdcffc65..9c7f8497b5da > > 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_uds.h > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_uds.h > > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static inline struct vsp1_uds *to_uds(struct v4l2_subdev > > *subdev) > > struct vsp1_uds *vsp1_uds_create(struct vsp1_device *vsp1, unsigned int > > index); > > -void vsp1_uds_set_alpha(struct vsp1_entity *uds, struct vsp1_dl_list *dl, > > +void vsp1_uds_set_alpha(struct vsp1_entity *entity, struct vsp1_dl_list > > *dl, > > unsigned int alpha); > > > > #endif /* __VSP1_UDS_H__ */ -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
