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). cheers, Gerd
