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. Thomas