On 28 July 2024 16:23:49 BST, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 02:07:01PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: >> On 28 July 2024 11:37:04 BST, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >Glad you asked :) >> >> Heh, I'm not sure I'm so glad. Did I mention I hate ACPI? Perhaps it's still >> not too late for me just to define a DT binding and use PRP0001 for it :) >> >> >Long story short, QEMUVGID is indeed out of spec, but it works >> >both because of guest compatibility with ACPI 1.0, and because no one >> >much uses it.
But why *did* it change from QEMU0003 which was in some of the patches that got posted? >> I think it's reasonable enough to follow that example and use AMZNVCLK (or >> QEMUVCLK, but there seems little point in both) then? > >I'd stick to spec. If you like puns, QEMUC10C maybe? Meh, might as well be sensible. I'll chase up which of my colleagues curates the AMZN space (which will no doubt be me by the end of that thread), and issue the next one from that.
