| Message ID | 20240111164652.908182-2-thuth@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ppc: Rename power5+ and power7+ for the new QOM naming rules | expand |
On 1/11/24 17:46, Thomas Huth wrote: > The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit > b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special > characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is > currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for > compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: > Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without > the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid(). > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com> Thanks, C.
On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote: > The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit > b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special > characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is > currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for > compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: > Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without > the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid(). > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > --- > hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- > qom/object.c | 4 ---- > target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c > index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c > @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { > DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), > DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), > DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), > - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), > + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), > DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), > - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), > + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"), Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ? Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com> > DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8_v2.0"), > DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8e_v2.1"), > DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8nvl_v1.0"), > diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c > index 654e1afaf2..2c4c64d2b6 100644 > --- a/qom/object.c > +++ b/qom/object.c > @@ -160,10 +160,6 @@ static bool type_name_is_valid(const char *name) > > /* Allow some legacy names with '+' in it for compatibility reasons */ > if (name[plen] == '+') { > - if (plen == 6 && g_str_has_prefix(name, "power")) { > - /* Allow "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names*/ > - return true; > - } > if (plen >= 17 && g_str_has_prefix(name, "Sun-UltraSparc-I")) { > /* Allow "Sun-UltraSparc-IV+" and "Sun-UltraSparc-IIIi+" */ > return true; > diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c > index 7dbb47de64..6d854bb023 100644 > --- a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c > +++ b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c > @@ -716,11 +716,11 @@ > "PowerPC 970MP v1.0") > POWERPC_DEF("970mp_v1.1", CPU_POWERPC_970MP_v11, 970, > "PowerPC 970MP v1.1") > - POWERPC_DEF("power5+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21, POWER5P, > + POWERPC_DEF("power5plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21, POWER5P, > "POWER5+ v2.1") > POWERPC_DEF("power7_v2.3", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23, POWER7, > "POWER7 v2.3") > - POWERPC_DEF("power7+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7, > + POWERPC_DEF("power7plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7, > "POWER7+ v2.1") > POWERPC_DEF("power8e_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER8E_v21, POWER8, > "POWER8E v2.1") > @@ -902,10 +902,12 @@ PowerPCCPUAlias ppc_cpu_aliases[] = { > { "970", "970_v2.2" }, > { "970fx", "970fx_v3.1" }, > { "970mp", "970mp_v1.1" }, > - { "power5+", "power5+_v2.1" }, > + { "power5+", "power5plus_v2.1" }, > + { "power5+_v2.1", "power5plus_v2.1" }, > { "power5gs", "power5+_v2.1" }, > { "power7", "power7_v2.3" }, > - { "power7+", "power7+_v2.1" }, > + { "power7+", "power7plus_v2.1" }, > + { "power7+_v2.1", "power7plus_v2.1" }, > { "power8e", "power8e_v2.1" }, > { "power8", "power8_v2.0" }, > { "power8nvl", "power8nvl_v1.0" },
On 12/01/2024 05.57, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: > > > On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote: >> The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit >> b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special >> characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is >> currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for >> compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: >> Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without >> the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> --- >> hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- >> qom/object.c | 4 ---- >> target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- >> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >> index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 >> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >> @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { >> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), >> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), >> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), >> - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), >> + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), >> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), >> - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), >> + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"), > > Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ? The "x" looks like a placeholder to me, so it could be confused with power50, power51, power52, etc. ...? But actually, I was thinking about using "power5p" and "power7p" first, so if the whole "plus" looks too long for you, would "p" be an option instead? > Otherwise, > Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com> Thanks! Thomas
On 1/12/24 10:42, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 12/01/2024 05.57, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: >> >> >> On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit >>> b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special >>> characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is >>> currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for >>> compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: >>> Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without >>> the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- >>> qom/object.c | 4 ---- >>> target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- >>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >>> index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 >>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >>> @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] >>> = { >>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), >>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), >>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), >>> - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), >>> + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), >>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), >>> - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), >>> + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"), >> >> Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ? > > The "x" looks like a placeholder to me, so it could be confused with > power50, power51, power52, etc. ...? > But actually, I was thinking about using "power5p" and "power7p" first, > so if the whole "plus" looks too long for you, would "p" be an option > instead? Hmm .. I would certainly vote for 'p' over 'plus'. regards, Harsh > >> Otherwise, >> Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com> > > Thanks! > > Thomas >
On 12/01/2024 06.21, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: > > > On 1/12/24 10:42, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 12/01/2024 05.57, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit >>>> b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special >>>> characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is >>>> currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for >>>> compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: >>>> Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without >>>> the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- >>>> qom/object.c | 4 ---- >>>> target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- >>>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >>>> index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 >>>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >>>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >>>> @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { >>>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), >>>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), >>>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), >>>> - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), >>>> + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), >>>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), >>>> - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), >>>> + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"), >>> >>> Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ? >> >> The "x" looks like a placeholder to me, so it could be confused with >> power50, power51, power52, etc. ...? >> But actually, I was thinking about using "power5p" and "power7p" first, so >> if the whole "plus" looks too long for you, would "p" be an option instead? > > Hmm .. I would certainly vote for 'p' over 'plus'. Ok, I don't mind either way ... does anybody else have any preferences? Thomas
On 1/12/24 11:55, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 12/01/2024 06.21, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: >> >> >> On 1/12/24 10:42, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 12/01/2024 05.57, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>> The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit >>>>> b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special >>>>> characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is >>>>> currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for >>>>> compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: >>>>> Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without >>>>> the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid(). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- >>>>> qom/object.c | 4 ---- >>>>> target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- >>>>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >>>>> index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 >>>>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >>>>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c >>>>> @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { >>>>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), >>>>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), >>>>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), >>>>> - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), >>>>> + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), >>>>> DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), >>>>> - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), >>>>> + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"), >>>> >>>> Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ? >>> >>> The "x" looks like a placeholder to me, so it could be confused with power50, power51, power52, etc. ...? >>> But actually, I was thinking about using "power5p" and "power7p" first, so if the whole "plus" looks too long for you, would "p" be an option instead? >> >> Hmm .. I would certainly vote for 'p' over 'plus'. > > Ok, I don't mind either way ... does anybody else have any preferences? p is fine. Thanks, C.
On 12/1/24 12:33, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 1/12/24 11:55, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 12/01/2024 06.21, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote: >>> Hmm .. I would certainly vote for 'p' over 'plus'. >> >> Ok, I don't mind either way ... does anybody else have any preferences? > > p is fine. We also use 'p' for '+' / 'plus' on ARM Raspberry Pi: $ qemu-system-aarch64 -M help | grep -F raspi raspi0 Raspberry Pi Zero (revision 1.2) raspi1ap Raspberry Pi A+ (revision 1.1) raspi2b Raspberry Pi 2B (revision 1.1) raspi3ap Raspberry Pi 3A+ (revision 1.0) raspi3b Raspberry Pi 3B (revision 1.2)
diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8_v2.0"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8e_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8nvl_v1.0"), diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c index 654e1afaf2..2c4c64d2b6 100644 --- a/qom/object.c +++ b/qom/object.c @@ -160,10 +160,6 @@ static bool type_name_is_valid(const char *name) /* Allow some legacy names with '+' in it for compatibility reasons */ if (name[plen] == '+') { - if (plen == 6 && g_str_has_prefix(name, "power")) { - /* Allow "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names*/ - return true; - } if (plen >= 17 && g_str_has_prefix(name, "Sun-UltraSparc-I")) { /* Allow "Sun-UltraSparc-IV+" and "Sun-UltraSparc-IIIi+" */ return true; diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c index 7dbb47de64..6d854bb023 100644 --- a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c +++ b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c @@ -716,11 +716,11 @@ "PowerPC 970MP v1.0") POWERPC_DEF("970mp_v1.1", CPU_POWERPC_970MP_v11, 970, "PowerPC 970MP v1.1") - POWERPC_DEF("power5+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21, POWER5P, + POWERPC_DEF("power5plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21, POWER5P, "POWER5+ v2.1") POWERPC_DEF("power7_v2.3", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23, POWER7, "POWER7 v2.3") - POWERPC_DEF("power7+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7, + POWERPC_DEF("power7plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7, "POWER7+ v2.1") POWERPC_DEF("power8e_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER8E_v21, POWER8, "POWER8E v2.1") @@ -902,10 +902,12 @@ PowerPCCPUAlias ppc_cpu_aliases[] = { { "970", "970_v2.2" }, { "970fx", "970fx_v3.1" }, { "970mp", "970mp_v1.1" }, - { "power5+", "power5+_v2.1" }, + { "power5+", "power5plus_v2.1" }, + { "power5+_v2.1", "power5plus_v2.1" }, { "power5gs", "power5+_v2.1" }, { "power7", "power7_v2.3" }, - { "power7+", "power7+_v2.1" }, + { "power7+", "power7plus_v2.1" }, + { "power7+_v2.1", "power7plus_v2.1" }, { "power8e", "power8e_v2.1" }, { "power8", "power8_v2.0" }, { "power8nvl", "power8nvl_v1.0" },
The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid(). Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- qom/object.c | 4 ---- target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)