On 07/30/2012 05:29 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> writes: > >>>> Virtio makes sense for qxl, but for now we have the original pci model >>>> which I don't see a reason why it can't work for ppc. >>> >>> I'm sure it can work for PPC given enough effort. But I think the >>> question becomes, why not invest that effort in moving qxl to the >>> standard transport that the rest of our PV devices use. >> >> The drm drivers for the current model are needed anyway; so moving to >> virtio is extra effort, not an alternative. > > This is just a point in time statement. If we were serious about using > virtio then we could quickly introduce a virtio transport and only > target the DRM drivers at the virtio transport.
That doesn't help all the deployed hypervisors out there. IMO we're mature enough, and the difference doesn't warrant a new interface. >> Note virtio doesn't support mapping framebuffers yet > > Yes. I haven't seen a good proposal yet on how to handle this. I think > this is the main problem to solve. It doesn't seem to be such a huge problem, though it does turn virtio into a respec'ed PCI. > >> or the entire vga compatibility stuff > > This is actually independent of virtio. A virtio-pci device could > expose it's class code as a VGA adapter and also handle I/O accesses for > the legacy region. This is strictly a PC-ism. We have to share the BAR space with VGA; not a huge problem. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
