On 30 July 2015 at 10:24, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 July 2015 at 09:04, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:20AM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> >>> Why do we drop the previous way using "QEMUXXXX"? Something I missed? >> >> So that guests that bind to this interface will work fine with non QEMU >> implementations of virtio-mmio. > > I don't understand this sentence. If there are pre-existing > non-QEMU virtio-mmio implementations, then they're using > LNRO0005, and we should use it too.
The only one I have come across is the ARM FVP model, and it happens that I chose the ID and maintain the tables for that so I can change it. Graeme
