> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:12:43AM +0200, Lukáš Hrázký wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-08-23 at 22:42 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > "we only support" seems to just state the use cases before adding > > > > vGPU but we are trying to support vGPU cases. > > > > If even we decide that for vGPU cards we always have monitor_id == 0 > > > > > > Yes, we want this for sure. One channel per display. > > > > For sure? This deserves a justification. > > That is the way modern display architectures (including wayland) are > working. One framebuffer per display. Not one huge framebuffer > covering all heads, then defining rectangles for each display, like qxl > handles multihead on linux (with xorg). > > And the qxl way of doing multihead on linux starts to cause problems: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611141 > Having a single frame buffer for channel is a current implementation limit which can be relaxed. I agree the main problem of this rework should be vdagent "mapping" of the display_id received although honestly as we are changing the protocol for different reasons I would remove the ugly formula and all its subtle assumptions all the way around. Frediano _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel