Gerd Hoffmann <[email protected]> writes:
> On 01/09/13 11:09, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
>>>> I don't care that much what the actual names are. Using piix + q35 is
>>>> inconsistent, so it isn't that a good choice indeed. So what now?
>>>>
>>>> (1) We could go for the host bridge and use 'i440fx' + 'q35'.
>>>> (2) We could go for the south bridge and use 'piix' + 'ich9'.
>>
>> Either of these sound fine to me, with a slight preference for the
>> first option.
>>
>>>> (3) Something different?
>>
>> If we really want 'pc' in the name, then
>>
>> (4) pci440fx & pcq35
>> (5) pcpiix & pcich9
>
> A dash would improve readability, also we have isapc which has pc as
> postfix, so maybe 'i440fx-pc' + 'q35-pc' ?
>
>>> The issue I have with 'i440fx' and 'q35' is that it's basically
>>> gibberish to a non-QEMU developer.
>>
>> With my users and/or libvirt developers hat on, I don't agree really.
>> What Gerd suggests clearly states the hardware type being used by the
>> machine. I think 'pc' is pretty much meaningless as a machine name
>> because it can mean pretty much anything you want to it. It is akin
>> to just calling your network device 'nic' and your disk device 'disk',
>> which QEMU doesn't do for obvious reasons.
>
> Fully agree. It also follows the convention of other archs (just look
> at the arm machine names).
Okay, I'm fine with i440fx-pc/q35-pc (with a slight preference for
pc-{i440fx,q35}).
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
>
> cheers,
> Gerd
