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

On 12/01/2024 06.21, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: > > > On 1/12/24 10:42, Thomas Huth wrote: >> 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? > > Hmm .. I would certainly vote for 'p' over 'plus'. Ok, I don't mind either way ... does anybody else have any preferences?