On 1/12/24 11:55, Thomas Huth wrote:
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@redhat.com> --- 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?
p is fine. Thanks, C.