10:46 a.m.
We can get rid of the "power5+" / "power7+" hack in qom/object.c
by using CPU aliases for those names instead (first patch).
I think in the long run, we should get rid of the names with a "+"
in it completely, so the second patch suggests to deprecate those,
but I'd also be fine if we keep the aliases around, so in that case
please ignore the second patch.
Thomas Huth (2):
target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming
rules
docs/about: Deprecate the old "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names
docs/about/deprecated.rst | 9 +++++++++
hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++--
qom/object.c | 4 ----
target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++----
4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--
2.43.0
10:46 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules
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>
---
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"),
DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8_v2.0"),
DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8e_v2.1"),
DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8nvl_v1.0"),
diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c
index 654e1afaf2..2c4c64d2b6 100644
--- a/qom/object.c
+++ b/qom/object.c
@@ -160,10 +160,6 @@ static bool type_name_is_valid(const char *name)
/* Allow some legacy names with '+' in it for compatibility reasons */
if (name[plen] == '+') {
- if (plen == 6 && g_str_has_prefix(name, "power")) {
- /* Allow "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names*/
- return true;
- }
if (plen >= 17 && g_str_has_prefix(name,
"Sun-UltraSparc-I")) {
/* Allow "Sun-UltraSparc-IV+" and "Sun-UltraSparc-IIIi+"
*/
return true;
diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c
index 7dbb47de64..6d854bb023 100644
--- a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c
+++ b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c
@@ -716,11 +716,11 @@
"PowerPC 970MP v1.0")
POWERPC_DEF("970mp_v1.1", CPU_POWERPC_970MP_v11, 970,
"PowerPC 970MP v1.1")
- POWERPC_DEF("power5+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21, POWER5P,
+ POWERPC_DEF("power5plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21, POWER5P,
"POWER5+ v2.1")
POWERPC_DEF("power7_v2.3", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23, POWER7,
"POWER7 v2.3")
- POWERPC_DEF("power7+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7,
+ POWERPC_DEF("power7plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7,
"POWER7+ v2.1")
POWERPC_DEF("power8e_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER8E_v21, POWER8,
"POWER8E v2.1")
@@ -902,10 +902,12 @@ PowerPCCPUAlias ppc_cpu_aliases[] = {
{ "970", "970_v2.2" },
{ "970fx", "970fx_v3.1" },
{ "970mp", "970mp_v1.1" },
- { "power5+", "power5+_v2.1" },
+ { "power5+", "power5plus_v2.1" },
+ { "power5+_v2.1", "power5plus_v2.1" },
{ "power5gs", "power5+_v2.1" },
{ "power7", "power7_v2.3" },
- { "power7+", "power7+_v2.1" },
+ { "power7+", "power7plus_v2.1" },
+ { "power7+_v2.1", "power7plus_v2.1" },
{ "power8e", "power8e_v2.1" },
{ "power8", "power8_v2.0" },
{ "power8nvl", "power8nvl_v1.0" },
--
2.43.0
11:24 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for
new QOM naming rules
On 1/11/24 17:46, 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>
Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg(a)redhat.com>
Thanks,
C.
10:57 p.m.
New subject: [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>
---
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>
> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8_v2.0"),
> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8e_v2.1"),
> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8nvl_v1.0"),
> diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c
> index 654e1afaf2..2c4c64d2b6 100644
> --- a/qom/object.c
> +++ b/qom/object.c
> @@ -160,10 +160,6 @@ static bool type_name_is_valid(const char *name)
>
> /* Allow some legacy names with '+' in it for compatibility reasons */
> if (name[plen] == '+') {
> - if (plen == 6 && g_str_has_prefix(name, "power")) {
> - /* Allow "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names*/
> - return true;
> - }
> if (plen >= 17 && g_str_has_prefix(name,
"Sun-UltraSparc-I")) {
> /* Allow "Sun-UltraSparc-IV+" and
"Sun-UltraSparc-IIIi+" */
> return true;
> diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c
> index 7dbb47de64..6d854bb023 100644
> --- a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c
> +++ b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c
> @@ -716,11 +716,11 @@
> "PowerPC 970MP v1.0")
> POWERPC_DEF("970mp_v1.1", CPU_POWERPC_970MP_v11,
970,
> "PowerPC 970MP v1.1")
> - POWERPC_DEF("power5+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21,
POWER5P,
> + POWERPC_DEF("power5plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21,
POWER5P,
> "POWER5+ v2.1")
> POWERPC_DEF("power7_v2.3", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23,
POWER7,
> "POWER7 v2.3")
> - POWERPC_DEF("power7+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21,
POWER7,
> + POWERPC_DEF("power7plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21,
POWER7,
> "POWER7+ v2.1")
> POWERPC_DEF("power8e_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER8E_v21,
POWER8,
> "POWER8E v2.1")
> @@ -902,10 +902,12 @@ PowerPCCPUAlias ppc_cpu_aliases[] = {
> { "970", "970_v2.2" },
> { "970fx", "970fx_v3.1" },
> { "970mp", "970mp_v1.1" },
> - { "power5+", "power5+_v2.1" },
> + { "power5+", "power5plus_v2.1" },
> + { "power5+_v2.1", "power5plus_v2.1" },
> { "power5gs", "power5+_v2.1" },
> { "power7", "power7_v2.3" },
> - { "power7+", "power7+_v2.1" },
> + { "power7+", "power7plus_v2.1" },
> + { "power7+_v2.1", "power7plus_v2.1" },
> { "power8e", "power8e_v2.1" },
> { "power8", "power8_v2.0" },
> { "power8nvl", "power8nvl_v1.0" },
11:12 p.m.
New subject: [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>
> ---
> 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?
Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb(a)linux.ibm.com>
Thanks!
Thomas
11:21 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for
new QOM naming rules
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>
>> ---
>> 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'.
regards,
Harsh
>
>> Otherwise,
>> Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb(a)linux.ibm.com>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Thomas
>
4:55 a.m.
New subject: [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>
>>> ---
>>> 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?
Thomas
5:33 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for
new QOM naming rules
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(a)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.
9:47 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for
new QOM naming rules
On 12/1/24 12:33, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 1/12/24 11:55, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 12/01/2024 06.21, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
>> 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.
We also use 'p' for '+' / 'plus' on ARM Raspberry Pi:
$ qemu-system-aarch64 -M help | grep -F raspi
raspi0 Raspberry Pi Zero (revision 1.2)
raspi1ap Raspberry Pi A+ (revision 1.1)
raspi2b Raspberry Pi 2B (revision 1.1)
raspi3ap Raspberry Pi 3A+ (revision 1.0)
raspi3b Raspberry Pi 3B (revision 1.2)
10:46 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 2/2] docs/about: Deprecate the old "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names
For consistency we should drop the names with a "+" in it in the
long run.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com>
---
docs/about/deprecated.rst | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/about/deprecated.rst b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
index 2e15040246..7fdd2239b4 100644
--- a/docs/about/deprecated.rst
+++ b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
@@ -245,6 +245,15 @@ Nios II CPU (since 8.2)
The Nios II architecture is orphan. The ``nios2`` guest CPU support is
deprecated and will be removed in a future version of QEMU.
+``power5+`` and ``power7+`` CPU names (since 9.0)
+'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
+
+The character "+" in device (and thus also CPU) names is not allowed
+in the QEMU object model anymore. ``power5+``, ``power5+_v2.1``,
+``power7+`` and ``power7+_v2.1`` are currently still supported via
+an alias, but for consistency these will get removed in a future
+release, too. Use ``power5plus_v2.1`` and ``power7plus_v2.1`` instead.
+
System emulator machines
------------------------
--
2.43.0
11:25 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 2/2] docs/about: Deprecate the old "power5+" and "power7+"
CPU names
On 1/11/24 17:46, Thomas Huth wrote:
For consistency we should drop the names with a "+" in it
in the
long run.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com>
---
docs/about/deprecated.rst | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/about/deprecated.rst b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
index 2e15040246..7fdd2239b4 100644
--- a/docs/about/deprecated.rst
+++ b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
@@ -245,6 +245,15 @@ Nios II CPU (since 8.2)
The Nios II architecture is orphan. The ``nios2`` guest CPU support is
deprecated and will be removed in a future version of QEMU.
+``power5+`` and ``power7+`` CPU names (since 9.0)
+'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
+
+The character "+" in device (and thus also CPU) names is not allowed
+in the QEMU object model anymore. ``power5+``, ``power5+_v2.1``,
+``power7+`` and ``power7+_v2.1`` are currently still supported via
+an alias, but for consistency these will get removed in a future
+release, too. Use ``power5plus_v2.1`` and ``power7plus_v2.1`` instead.
+
System emulator machines
------------------------
Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg(a)redhat.com>
Thanks,
C.
6:48 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 0/2] ppc: Rename power5+ and power7+ for the new QOM
naming rules
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 17:46:50 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
We can get rid of the "power5+" / "power7+" hack
in qom/object.c
by using CPU aliases for those names instead (first patch).
I think in the long run, we should get rid of the names with a "+"
in it completely, so the second patch suggests to deprecate those,
but I'd also be fine if we keep the aliases around, so in that case
please ignore the second patch.
Thomas Huth (2):
target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming
rules
docs/about: Deprecate the old "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names
libvirt seems to be explicitly referencing power7+ in the code, so I
guess we'll need code to translate the + versions to the spellt-out
version to preserve compatibility.
8:05 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH 0/2] ppc: Rename power5+ and power7+ for the new QOM
naming rules
On 12/01/2024 13.48, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 17:46:50 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> We can get rid of the "power5+" / "power7+" hack in qom/object.c
> by using CPU aliases for those names instead (first patch).
>
> I think in the long run, we should get rid of the names with a "+"
> in it completely, so the second patch suggests to deprecate those,
> but I'd also be fine if we keep the aliases around, so in that case
> please ignore the second patch.
>
> Thomas Huth (2):
> target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming
> rules
> docs/about: Deprecate the old "power5+" and "power7+" CPU
names
libvirt seems to be explicitly referencing power7+ in the code, so I
guess we'll need code to translate the + versions to the spellt-out
version to preserve compatibility.
If it's too cumbersome, we could also keep the alias enabled in QEMU, i.e.
drop the second patch...?
Thomas
310
days inactive
316
days old
12 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Cédric Le Goater -
Cédric Le Goater -
Harsh Prateek Bora -
Peter Krempa -
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé -
Thomas Huth