On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:52:29PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 28 July 2015 at 11:33, G Gregory <graeme.greg...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > We assigned LNRO in ASWG to avoid collisions with our prototypes/real
> > platforms so it makes sense to me to switch to QEMUXXXX.
>
> So just to check, if we switch virtio-mmio from an LNRO0005 ID
> to a QEMUxxxx ID we aren't going to break any existing widely
> shipped or deployed code, right?
>
> If we can change the ID without breaking anything significant
> then I think the QEMU ID makes more sense; but it doesn't
> really gain us much beyond tidiness.
>
> PS: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt
> uses virtio-mmio and LNRO0005 as its code example, so if
> we change this then it might be nice to update the docs
> as a followup.
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
So this is the proposed patch. I agree it's merely about tidyness.
Pls ack or nack - we need to decide before 2.4 is out.
-->
arm: change vendor ID for virtio-mmio
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
---
diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
index f365140..d10bd69 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("QEMU0005")));
aml_append(dev, aml_name_decl("_UID", aml_int(i)));
Aml *crs = aml_resource_template();
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
