Hi, > I don't know. This seems exactly like the kind of thing > we had in mind when we added the virtio pci capability. > For example, we have text in spec that requires drivers > to skip unknown capabilities. > > And yes, if bios pokes at a specific bar then we do > need to list this info in the virtio spec so this makes > it an issue that is virtio related. Hmm, virtio-vga is a two-in-one device basically. When virtio is enabled it behaves like virtio-gpu-pci, otherwise it behaves very simliar to stdvga. So you need to know nothing about virtio to handle the vga side, and I want keep it that way. When no vga compatibility is needed there always is the option to just use virtio-gpu-pci instead. > Yes, it's not about what we put there now. It's about being able > to move things about in the future without breaking guests. We don't have that today for stdvga, and I still fail to see what this buys us. Completely different thing crossing my mind: I think we can make virtio-vga fully compatible with stdvga. stdvga has two bars, memory (#0) and mmio (#2). We can make the mmio bar larger and place all the virtio regions there. I think in any case I'll go split off the vga compatibility bits to a different patch (and possible a separate patch series). cheers, Gerd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
