On 25.07.2011, at 14:05, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 25 July 2011 12:48, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >> For ARM you absolutely should not be relying on the default >> machine type (not least because it's an incredibly ancient >> dev board which nobody uses any more). An ARM kernel is >> generally fairly specific to the hardware platform being >> emulated, so you should know which machine you're intending >> to run on and specify it explicitly. > > In fact having thought about it a bit I'm going to go further > and say that the whole idea of a "default machine" is a rather > x86-centric idea -- most architectures don't really have a > single machine type that's used by just about everybody, > always has been, and isn't likely to become obsolete in the > future. So if we're reworking the command line API to > supersede "-M" then we shouldn't have a default at all.
That's not exactly true. For PPC, everyone so far expects a Mac to pop up. For S390x, we only have a single machine implemented. I think having a default makes it easier for users to run something you give to them - if it runs on the default target. > (Consider also the possibility of eventually having a single > qemu binary that supports multiple architectures -- that > would make a 'default machine' definitely a bit odd.) It would be a different machine depending on the emulated target. Alex
