Re: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules

On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote: > The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit > b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special > characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is > currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for > compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: > Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without > the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid(). > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com&gt; > --- >   hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c |  4 ++-- >   qom/object.c            |  4 ---- >   target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- >   3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c > index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c > @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { >       DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), >       DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), >       DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), > -    DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), > +    DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), >       DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), > -    DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), > +    DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"), Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ?

Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb(a)linux.ibm.com&gt;