From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42290) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YESLp-0005wF-Rh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:43:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YESLk-0000Q8-GB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:43:53 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:31056) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YESLk-0000Pm-AP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:43:48 -0500 Message-ID: <54C19936.1060804@intel.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:43:34 +0800 From: "Chen, Tiejun" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1421824792-3925-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <21695.36752.122911.770104@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <1421848132.11160.44.camel@nilsson.home.kraxel.org> <54C0498D.1030603@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <54C0498D.1030603@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH 1/1] libxl: add one machine property to support IGD GFX passthrough List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann , Ian Jackson , ian.campbell@citrix.com Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org On 2015/1/22 8:51, Chen, Tiejun wrote: > On 2015/1/21 21:48, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> On Mi, 2015-01-21 at 11:37 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> Tiejun Chen writes ("[RFC][PATCH 1/1] libxl: add one machine property >>> to support IGD GFX passthrough"): >>>> When we're working to support IGD GFX passthrough with qemu >>>> upstream, instead of "-gfx_passthru" we'd like to make that >>>> a machine option, "-machine xxx,gfx_passthru=on". This need >>>> to bring several changes on tool side. >>> >>> Has the corresponding patch to qemu-upstream been accepted yet ? >>> >>> I'd like to see a confirmation from the qemu side that this is going >>> into their tree and that the command-line option syntax has been >>> agreed. >> >> Suggested at patch review, not merged (guess thats why it is tagged >> 'rfc', to get both qemu+xen on the same page). > > Yeah, this is exactly what I intended to do here :) > >> >> While being at it: Should we name this 'igd-passthru' instead of >> 'gfx-passthru'? The hostbridge / isabridge quirks needed are actually >> specific to igd and are not needed for -- say -- nvidia gfx cards. >> > > At this point I just concern here if we still use 'gfx_passthrou', at > least it may look like a backward compatibility with older versions of > qemu in Xen side, qemu-xen-traditional. But I'd like to follow your > final option. > Any feedback to this option I should follow here? Thanks Tiejun