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

[Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com>]

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
>