On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: > On 2012-11-01 18:17, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2012-11-01 18:15, Jordan Justen wrote: >>> Would the old behavior need to be preserved for pc-1.1 & pc-1.2? >> >> Why? This is just restoring the older, correct behavior. > > Err, sorry, there was no difference to the behavior before pflash > (unless flash was changed by the guest). > > Still, I see no point in preserving the current behavior even for compat > machine. Which (sane) guest should rely on an inconsistency between the > two BIOS mappings after an update?
I will not claim to know much about this, but I thought the purpose was to allow qemu to properly restore old saved VMs. I agree that the alias in an improvement in machine emulation, and I don't think any guest software will rely upon the pc-1.1/pc-1.2 behavior. It is probably worth verifying that the 440 chipset PAM registers are still working after this change. -Jordan
