On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:32:59PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:20:16PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > >On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:06:18PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > >> On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 14:43 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > >> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:30:23AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >> > > Most of QEMU's PCI display device models, such as: > >> > > >> > Pushed, thanks. > >> > >> Ouch, you were too fast! ;) > >> > >> There is something I wanted to clarify with Laszlo: is > >> virtio-gpu-pci ever going to be usable on other architectures > >> such as x86_64? Maybe it already is? Because if that's the > >> case, we'll want to be able to choose between virtio-vga and > >> virtio-gpu-pci. > >> > >> One solution would be to keep mapping model='virtio' to > >> virtio-vga and create a new model='virtio-gpu' that maps to > >> virtio-gpu-pci, then forbid aarch64 mach-virt guests to use > >> model='virtio'. Or something like that, I'm not married to > >> the idea, I just think it's something we should definitely > >> think about before this ends up in a release. > > > >I have some patches in my TODO branch that will rewrite the video > >device code. virtio-gpu-pci is usable also on other architectures > >but it lacks the VGA compatibility mode. In libvirt all primary > >video devices for x86 architecture have VGA mode. Currently we > >allow only QXL to be used as secondary video device and now with > >the virtio-gpu-pci it could be also used as secondary video device. > > > >The solution would be simple, there is no need to add a new video > >model 'virtio-gpu', we will use the existing model 'virtio', but > >depending on architecture and also whether it's primary or > >secondary video device we will use appropriate device. > >We already do this for QXL. > > > > I'm not sure we're on the same track, so just to confirm I'll ask few > questions. We guarantee that on x86_64 primary video devices have > always VGA compatibility mode? So virtio-gpu-pci will *never* be able > to act as a primary video on x64? If the answers are "yes, yes", then I > think this patch can stay as it is. Unless I missed something else. The answer is yes. This patch is correct, fixes things on aarch64 and doesn't break anything on x64. Pavel -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list