Inside the SafeTI Diagnostic Library package TI provides functions supporting SPI communication with the TPS65381 PMIC.
One of the files in that package is TPS_DebugSupport.c.
As of SafeTI v2.4.0 this file generates several compilation warnings:
Description Resource Path Location Type
#169-D argument of type "const uint8 *" is incompatible with parameter of type "const char *" TPS_DebugSupport.c /SafeTI/TPS_Driver/source line 84 C/C++ Problem
#169-D argument of type "const uint8 *" is incompatible with parameter of type "const char *" TPS_DebugSupport.c /SafeTI/TPS_Driver/source line 89 C/C++ Problem
#169-D argument of type "const uint8 *" is incompatible with parameter of type "const char *" TPS_DebugSupport.c /SafeTI/TPS_Driver/source line 115 C/C++ Problem
#169-D argument of type "const uint8 *" is incompatible with parameter of type "const char *" TPS_DebugSupport.c /SafeTI/TPS_Driver/source line 118 C/C++ Problem
#169-D argument of type "uint8 *" is incompatible with parameter of type "char *" TPS_DebugSupport.c /SafeTI/TPS_Driver/source line 87 C/C++ Problem
#169-D argument of type "uint8 *" is incompatible with parameter of type "char *" TPS_DebugSupport.c /SafeTI/TPS_Driver/source line 89 C/C++ Problem
#169-D argument of type "uint8 *" is incompatible with parameter of type "const char *" TPS_DebugSupport.c /SafeTI/TPS_Driver/source line 92 C/C++ Problem
We happen to be using TI's ARM Optimizing C/C++ v16.9.7.LTS compiler, but we would expect to see similar warnings on many other versions and vendors of compilers.
We're aware of some options we have to deal with this issue, but our first preference would be that TI code would compile cleanly (even if we weren't using it in a safety-related product).
One other note related to the TPS driver library:
Looking at how the files have changed between v2.2.0 and v2.4.0, I can see that you've been updating the version number listed inside the "Revision History" of each TPS file, but have not been updating the revision history itself. This is not helpful. Arguably it is misleading. If you are not going to maintain the revision history then I would suggest just deleting it altogether.
--thx
