Re: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules
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)
Re: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules
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
---
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.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules
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
---
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
Re: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules
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
---
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
Thanks!
Thomas
Re: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules
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
---
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
Thanks!
Thomas
Re: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules
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
---
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
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" },
Re: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules
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 Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater Thanks, C.
[PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules
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
---
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"),
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" },
--
2.43.0
