[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] arm: change vendor ID for virtio-mmio
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] arm: change vendor ID for virtio-mmio |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:24:11 +0100 |
On 30 July 2015 at 09:04, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:20AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>
>> Why do we drop the previous way using "QEMUXXXX"? Something I missed?
>
> So that guests that bind to this interface will work fine with non QEMU
> implementations of virtio-mmio.
I don't understand this sentence. If there are pre-existing
non-QEMU virtio-mmio implementations, then they're using
LNRO0005, and we should use it too. If there are going to
be implementations of virtio-mmio in future, then they will
use whatever identifier we pick here. Either way, we get
interoperability. I don't see any difference between our
saying "the ID for virtio-mmio is QEMU0005" and saying
"the ID for virtio-mmio is 1AF4103F".
(The latter seems unnecessarily opaque to me, to be honest.
At least an ID string QEMUxxxx gives you a clue where to
look for who owns the thing.)
Note also that strictly you don't mean "non-QEMU implementations
of virtio-mmio", you mean "non-QEMU implementations of the
ACPI tables". The hardware implementation of virtio-mmio
doesn't care at all about the ACPI ID. (In fact the most
plausible other-implementation would be UEFI using its
own (hard-coded) ACPI tables on top of a QEMU vexpress-a15
model or something similar.)
-- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] arm: change vendor ID for virtio-mmio, Peter Maydell, 2015/07/31