On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:24:11AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 30 July 2015 at 09:04, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> 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". I agree. It's just that 1AF4 is already reserved for virtio. > (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.) Well - if one looks in the ACPI spec, that says if ID uses numbers, then one has to find the vendor from PCI SIG, and that has a database mapping IDs to vendors. > > Note also that strictly you don't mean "non-QEMU implementations > of virtio-mmio", you mean "non-QEMU implementations of the > ACPI tables". Yes. > 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 _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
