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

On 12/01/2024 05.57, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: > > > 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 ? The "x" looks like a placeholder to me, so it could be confused with power50, power51, power52, etc. ...? But actually, I was thinking about using "power5p" and "power7p" first, so if the whole "plus" looks too long for you, would "p" be an option instead?