From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55573)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1Z7P61-0000et-6m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:22:41 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1Z7P5v-0003tB-Vo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:22:41 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59213)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1Z7P5v-0003t7-RL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:22:35 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:22:33 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20150623162145-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
References: <20150428162442-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<20150623155722-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA82Ahet=eKLR3AhOuTYez4ZO+Fe_rhGrYCxvWWc4HCWcw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA82Ahet=eKLR3AhOuTYez4ZO+Fe_rhGrYCxvWWc4HCWcw@mail.gmail.com>
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 03:18:38PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> 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

Yes, I'd like to register "QEMU" since we are already using it.
A bit less work for everyone involved.  It seems free at this point.

-- 
MST