On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:01:35AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > > > On 2015/7/29 5:10, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 28 July 2015 at 21:28, G Gregory <graeme.gregory@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On 28 July 2015 at 21:12, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> >> Mmm. I'm not terribly happy about stuff being in QEMU before the > >>> >> ACPI spec for it has been finalised. We should not be picking > >>> >> stuff randomly on the fly... > >>> >> > >>> >> If we want to fix the ACPI IDs QEMU is using for 2.4 then we > >>> >> really need to do that now (ie within the next day or two). > >>> >> > >> > It is upto the owner of the QEMU prefix to allocate numbers. This is > >> > not an issue for ACPI spec at all. > > I mean "the specification for how this device should be advertised > > in an ACPI table". I don't care whether that's an official ACPI > > consortium thing or something less official. The table is > > constructed by QEMU and read by the kernel (and possibly > > also by UEFI?), so everybody needs to agree on what the > > string is... > > I agree with Peter. Maybe we should record these IDs at some place. Right. And it should apply even if you keep using LNRO. Pls create docs/specs/acpi_ids.txt and list them there. For simplicity, I'd just replace LNRO with QEMU. > Since QEMU is owner of this device and we register QEMU in ASWG, the > official ID can be assigned by QEMU and the ID could(or should) be > "QEMUXXXX". But what's the exact ID for this virtio-mmio? That's what we > need to agree on and record. So far we only had PVPANIC with ACPI ID QEMU0001. > P.S. I don't see "QEMU" in the list of approved Vendor IDs for ACPI. > http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/PNPID_List.pdf > http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPIID_List.pdf Should appear there any day now. > -- > Shannon _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
