From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51777) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V4yhH-0007Xc-CN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:38:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V4yhB-0006wD-8G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:38:03 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32008) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V4yhA-0006vp-VG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:37:57 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r71Jbt2M012311 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 15:37:55 -0400 Message-ID: <51FAB912.5040203@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:37:54 -0400 From: Laine Stump MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] default slot used for vga device on q35 machines List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu list libvirt makes an assumption that if you specify "-vga qxl" instead of "-device qxl-vga,...", the vga device will be connected to slot 2. I learned this in a recent discussion about a bug caused by switching over to using the former syntax (in order to support multiheaded QXL): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=981094#c9 Since then, while working on proper support for the q35 machine type in libvirt, I did a test run of: qemu-kvm -M q35 -nodefaults -nodefconfig -qmp unix:/tmp/qemu,server -vnc :15 -vga std -usb Then ran "query-pci" in the qmp monitor and found that the vga device is put at slot 1 instead of slot 2. My questions: 1) Is this difference intentional, or a bug? 2) If it's intentional, will the device always be at slot 1 (and trigger an error if something else is also placed at slot 1), or is it just picking the first unused slot? (that would *not* be good, because we must be able to predict what device is in which slot and prevent them from changing from run to run). 3) Does the qxl multihead support really require that the device be at slot 2 (as stated in the above bugzilla commend)? Or is that just a misunderstanding/overstatement?