On 14.12.2016 08:56, Laurent Vivier wrote: > Le 14/12/2016 à 08:43, Thomas Huth a écrit : >> On 13.12.2016 19:19, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 9 December 2016 at 12:17, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c >>>> index d4160df..60770d4 100644 >>>> --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c >>>> +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c >>>> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ >>>> #include "qemu/bitmap.h" >>>> #include "trace.h" >>>> #include "qom/cpu.h" >>>> -#include "target-arm/cpu.h" >>>> +#include "cpu.h" >>>> #include "hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h" >>>> #include "hw/acpi/acpi.h" >>>> #include "hw/nvram/fw_cfg.h" >>> >>> Something looks wrong here. We definitely want the ARM >>> version of cpu.h, not any random cpu.h. The #include >>> filename should make it clear which file we're getting, >>> both so it's easier for humans to understand and so that >>> one day we might be able to build more than one target >>> CPU into the same QEMU binary. >> >> Right, good catch, thanks! Looks like I did it right in the other >> patches and used target/ppc/cpu.h there for example ... I'll fix it for >> ARM in the next version of the patch... > > There is the same problem in: m68k, alpha, mips and sh4. > > Could you fix them too?
You mean the #inlcude "cpu-qom.h" statements? I think they are less critical since there is no cpu-qom.h in the generic include folder ... but yes, better safe than sorry, I'll fix these statements, too. Thomas
