On 25 June 2013 12:55, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:35:44AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > Makes sense to me. Maybe there could be a better name than target_cpu.h > but I don't have a better suggestion.
Yeah, the name isn't fantastic but I didn't want to use plain cpu.h (really confusing) and we've got other target_*.h in the per-arch directories already, so it's at least vaguely consistent. thanks -- PMM
