On 2015/7/30 3:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> ACPI spec 5.0 allows the use of PCI vendor IDs.
>
But virtio-mmio is not a PCI device, it's a platform device.
Why do we drop the previous way using "QEMUXXXX"? Something I missed?
> Since we have one for virtio, it seems neater to use that
> rather than LNRO. For the device ID, use 103F which is a legacy ID that
> isn't used in virtio PCI spec - seems to make sense since virtio-mmio is
> a legacy device but we don't know the correct device type.
>
> Guests should probably match everything in the range 1000-103F
> (just like legacy pci drivers do) which will allow us to pass in the
> actual ID in the future if we want to.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> index f365140..dea61ba 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("1AF4103F")));
> aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(i)));
>
> Aml *crs = aml_resource_template();
>
--
Shannon
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
