Re: Tricore default machine

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>]

On 2/10/20 2:22 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 12:33, Bastian Koppelmann
> <kbastian@mail.uni-paderborn.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/10/20 11:26 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2020 11.08, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/20 10:35 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2020 17.19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>>> I wonder whether we should simply make that machine the default for
>>>>> qemu-system-tricore? There is only one machine here, and not having a
>>>>> default machine always causes some headaches in the tests...
>>>>> (see e.g. tests/qemu-iotests/check for example)
>>>> Or make it generic? If a architecture has a single machine, use it by
>>>> default?
>>> Sounds like a good idea, too ... we've got a couple of targets that have
>>> only one machine.
> 
>> As far as I remember, I did not make it the default machine, since Peter
>> Maydell advised against it. His argument was that defaults are really
>> hard to get rid off since external tools (like libvirt) might rely on
>> the defaults and we don't want to break those. Anyways, no objections
>> from my side.
> 
> Yes; we have default machines partly for historical reasons
> and partly because x86 does, but unless there's a good
> reason for some architecture why this specific machine
> should be the default, I don't think we should have a default:
> making the user specify what they actually want helps to nudge
> them into thinking about what they do want, rather than
> assuming that QEMU will somehow magically be able to run
> guest images built for any random machine for the architecture.

OK now it makes sense.

> Anything in tests or whatever that breaks if there's no default
> machine for the architecture should be improved to handle that
> (it already needs to handle that case, though: arm does not
> have a defined default machine).

I tend to agree here.