CCing maintainer (pmaydell). On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 07:45:40PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 8/14/20 12:25 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > The PL1110 enum value name will conflict with the PL1110 type > > cast checker, when we replace the existing macro with an inline > > function. Rename it to PL1110_STOCK. > > typo s/PL1110/PL110/ in subject and description.
Thanks for spotting that! Will be fixed in v2. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > > --- > > hw/display/pl110.c | 12 ++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/display/pl110.c b/hw/display/pl110.c > > index c2991a28d2..4664fde3f2 100644 > > --- a/hw/display/pl110.c > > +++ b/hw/display/pl110.c > > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ enum pl110_bppmode > > /* The Versatile/PB uses a slightly modified PL110 controller. */ > > enum pl110_version > > { > > - PL110, > > + PL110_STOCK, > > PL110_VERSATILE, > > PL111 > > For completeness I'd also rename PL111. > > What about: > > enum pl110_version > { > PL110_VERSION, > PL110_VERSATILE_VERSION, > PL111_VERSION > } > > ? That would work too, although I'm more used to enum values to have a common prefix instead of a common suffix. Any objections to: enum pl110_version { VERSION_PL110, VERSION_PL110_VERSATILE, VERSION_PL111 } ? -- Eduardo