Re: [PATCH 1/2] target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules

[Thomas Huth]

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