On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:52:29PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 28 July 2015 at 11:33, G Gregory <graeme.gregory@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We assigned LNRO in ASWG to avoid collisions with our prototypes/real > > platforms so it makes sense to me to switch to QEMUXXXX. > > So just to check, if we switch virtio-mmio from an LNRO0005 ID > to a QEMUxxxx ID we aren't going to break any existing widely > shipped or deployed code, right? > > If we can change the ID without breaking anything significant > then I think the QEMU ID makes more sense; but it doesn't > really gain us much beyond tidiness. > > PS: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt > uses virtio-mmio and LNRO0005 as its code example, so if > we change this then it might be nice to update the docs > as a followup. > > thanks > -- PMM So this is the proposed patch. I agree it's merely about tidyness. Pls ack or nack - we need to decide before 2.4 is out. --> arm: change vendor ID for virtio-mmio Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> --- diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c index f365140..d10bd69 100644 --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_virtio(Aml *scope, for (i = 0; i < num; i++) { Aml *dev = aml_device("VR%02u", i); - aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_string("LNRO0005"))); + aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_HID", aml_string("QEMU0005"))); aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(i))); Aml *crs = aml_resource_template(); _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
