Re: [PATCH 3/5] hw/acpi/ich9: Include missing headers

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>]

On 20/2/24 03:33, Zhao Liu wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 03:14:09PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:14:09 +0100
>> From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
>> Subject: [PATCH 3/5] hw/acpi/ich9: Include missing headers
>> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.41.0
>>
>> The ICH9LPCPMRegs structure has MemoryRegion and
>> Notifier fields, so requires the "qemu/notify.h"
>> and "exec/memory.h" headers.
>>
>> However nothing from "hw/acpi/acpi_dev_interface.h"
>> is required, so reduce its inclusion to hw/acpi/ich9.c
>> source file where it is used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   include/hw/acpi/ich9.h | 3 ++-
>>   hw/acpi/ich9.c         | 2 +-
>>   2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)


>> diff --git a/hw/acpi/ich9.c b/hw/acpi/ich9.c
>> index 573d032e8e..be375a8b9d 100644
>> --- a/hw/acpi/ich9.c
>> +++ b/hw/acpi/ich9.c
>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
>>   #include "sysemu/runstate.h"
>>   #include "hw/acpi/acpi.h"
>>   #include "hw/acpi/ich9_tco.h"
>> -
>> +#include "hw/acpi/acpi_dev_interface.h"
> 
> Do we have the requirement for included header ordering?

We don't. If headers were properly including requisites and
self-contained, order shouldn't matter, and we could sort them
alphabetically to enforce a common style.

> If so, it would be better to put it before "hw/acpi/ich9_tco.h".

Sure, no problem.

> 
> -Zhao
> 
>>   #include "hw/southbridge/ich9.h"
>>   #include "hw/mem/pc-dimm.h"
>>   #include "hw/mem/nvdimm.h"
>> -- 
>> 2.41.0
>>
>>