On 4/26/19 2:20 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 26/04/2019 14.14, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 4/26/19 7:42 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2019 00.55, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> On 4/19/19 9:56 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>> First patch fixes a problem with ohci_die(), second patch moves PCI code
>>>>> into
>>>>> a separate file, so that the sysbus OHCI device can also be used without
>>>>> the dependency on the PCI code.
>>>>>
>>>>> v2: Split the patch into two patches, one for the ohci_die() fix and one
>>>>> for the PCI code movement.
>>>>
>>>> Way cleaner. I wonder why you don't use a typedef for the void
>>>> (*ohci_die_fn)(struct OHCIState *) prototype.
>>>
>>> It does not work in that case:
>>>
>>> typedef struct OHCIState { // <-- struct OHCIState definition
>>> [...]
>>> uint32_t async_td;
>>> bool async_complete;
>>>
>>> void (*ohci_die)(struct OHCIState *ohci); // <-- ohci_die definition
>>> } OHCIState; // <-- typedef OHCIState definition
>>>
>>> The typedef is defined after the ohci_die entry.
>>
>> I was thinking of forward declaration:
>>
>> typedef struct OHCIState OHCIState;
>>
>> typedef void (ohci_die_fn)(OHCIState *ohci);
>
> Could work, too, but I don't like typedeferities... so unless Gerd
> forces me to use that here, I'd prefer to keep the patch in its current
> shape.
Fine with me ;)
