From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51810)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>) id 1aiZiS-00077W-8x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:44:17 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>) id 1aiZiO-0006P0-8R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:44:16 -0400
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:49693)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>) id 1aiZiO-0006Os-2H
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:44:12 -0400
References: <1458203581-59143-1-git-send-email-guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
	<1458203581-59143-11-git-send-email-guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
	<20160317103538.GC14062@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
From: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <56F210DB.8060503@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:43:23 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160317103538.GC14062@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 10/15] nvdimm acpi: abstract the operations
 for root device and nvdimm devices
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: ehabkost@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mst@redhat.com, gleb@kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, imammedo@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, rth@twiddle.net



On 03/17/2016 06:35 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 04:32:56PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> +static void
>> +nvdimm_dsm_function0(uint32_t supported_func, hwaddr dsm_mem_addr)
>> +{
>> +    NvdimmDsmFunc0Out func0 = {
>> +        .len = cpu_to_le32(sizeof(func0)),
>> +        .supported_func = cpu_to_le32(supported_func),
>> +    };
>> +    cpu_physical_memory_write(dsm_mem_addr, &func0, sizeof(func0));
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void
>> +nvdimm_dsm_no_payload(uint32_t func_ret_status, hwaddr dsm_mem_addr)
>> +{
>> +    NvdimmDsmFuncNoPayloadOut out = {
>> +        .len = cpu_to_le32(sizeof(out)),
>> +        .func_ret_status = cpu_to_le32(func_ret_status),
>> +    };
>> +    cpu_physical_memory_write(dsm_mem_addr, &out, sizeof(out));
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void nvdimm_dsm_root(NvdimmDsmIn *in, hwaddr dsm_mem_addr)
>> +{
>> +    /*
>> +     * function 0 is called to inquire which functions are supported by
>> +     * OSPM
>> +     */
>> +    if (!in->function) {
>> +        return nvdimm_dsm_function0(0 /* No function supported other
>> +                                         than function 0 */, dsm_mem_addr);
>
> The return type is void so "return foo()" looks strange.  I went back
> and double-checked function prototypes because I was surprised by this
> line of code.  Please use the conventional "foo(); return;" for void
> return instead.
>

I am so lazy to omit this single line. :)

Okay, will follow this style in the next version.