Ah. :)
As is probably somewhat evident at this point, I'm using vexpress-a9 because it's such a convenient QEMU target, rather than because I have real hardware anywhere. Hm, I didn't once stop and think that maybe there actually were two LCD controllers. (And this is where software is great; I got to learn my assumptions were invalid without blowing anything up. :D) I tried to find the actual Versatile Express board I'm "using"; the closest I was able to come was https://community.arm.com/developer /tools-software/tools/b/tools-software-ides-blog/posts/50-off-arm- versatile-express-development-boards. It looks like it has two (...three?) processors and four PCIe slots. Very nice. Thanks again. ** Changed in: qemu Status: New => Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of qemu- devel-ml, which is subscribed to QEMU. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1833101 Title: vexpress-a9 (but not -a15) creates two pl111 LCDs due to duplicate sysbus_create_simple("pl111", ...) calls Status in QEMU: Invalid Bug description: Hi, Just a small report that (12ec8bd is current master) https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/12ec8bd/hw/arm/vexpress.c#L652: ... vexpress_common_init() { ... sysbus_create_simple("pl111", map[VE_CLCD], pic[14]); ... ... and https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/12ec8bd/hw/arm/vexpress.c#L304: ... a9_daughterboard_init() { ... sysbus_create_simple("pl111", 0x10020000, pic[44]); ... ... result in two LCD panels when using vexpress-a9. vexpress-a15 does not appear to be affected (my -a9 kernel does not work with it, but I see only one pl111 created). Understandably (but still annoyingly), -nodefaults has no effect. This bug is most evident when using SDL (so I can use ",frame=off"), which dumps two top-level windows onto the screen. GTK hides this because, coincidentally, the pl111 that ends up being used is the one that is selected (possibly the one created last?), relegating this to an obscure glitch only noticeable if you scrutinize the menu. This is a bugreport as opposed to a pull request as I have no idea which call to remove - and complete ignorance of the potential housekeeping and consideration that may be warranted first. FWIW, a simple testcase can be made with the vmlinuz from https://people.debian.org/~aurel32/qemu/armhf/ and qemu-system-arm -M vexpress-a9 -kernel vmlinuz-3.2.0-4-vexpress -nodefaults -sdl Thanks! To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1833101/+subscriptions