Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 04:07:16PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> 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. >> > > Full compatibility with some standard sounds like a better motivation, > yes. I think you misunderstand; stdvga is a specific qemu device that only provides the VGA interface. This proposed GPU provides both the VGA interface (the BAR in question) _and_ a virtio interface. >> >> 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 > > Will you still need me to change core to claim specific memory only? > > -- 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
