From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52161)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Z7P2V-0005l9-Nn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:19:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Z7P2Q-0001Mu-JS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:19:03 -0400
Received: from mail-vn0-f48.google.com ([209.85.216.48]:36205)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Z7P2Q-0001MH-GC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:18:58 -0400
Received: by vnbg1 with SMTP id g1so1718427vnb.3
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150623155722-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
References: <20150428162442-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<20150623155722-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:18:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA82Ahet=eKLR3AhOuTYez4ZO+Fe_rhGrYCxvWWc4HCWcw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] registering QEMU ACPI ID
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 23 June 2015 at 15:07, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello!
> QEMU uses the ACPI Vendor ID "QEMU" in some of the ACPI tables
> it generates. This is a bit of a spec violation:
> all IDs must be registered with the ASWG.
>
> From the ASWG point of view, things are easier if a legal entity owns a
> vendor ID, so Red Hat could ask to own the ID on behalf of the
> community.
>
> I intend to ask the ASWG to register this ID for Red Hat 2 weeks from
> now, July 7th.

RedHat already officially "own" our PCI ID space (see
docs/specs/pci-ids.txt) so having them also deal with ACPI IDs
seems a reasonable plan to me.

Is the plan that we register "QEMU" as the vendor ID, or are the
ASWG likely to require a different ID string?

thanks
-- PMM