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. 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. 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 -- Shannon _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
