From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58046) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSWaC-0001oE-IR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:00:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSWa5-0000g3-CR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:00:20 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com ([209.85.217.171]:45782) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WSWa5-0000fs-5e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:00:13 -0400 Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id w7so708910lbi.2 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:00:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <53318EFD.5030304@redhat.com> References: <20140325133001.GA31003@redhat.com> <53318A4F.7040203@redhat.com> <53318EFD.5030304@redhat.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:59:51 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] aarch64: -device virtio-scsi-device, id=scsi: No 'virtio-bus' bus found for device 'virtio-scsi-device' List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: "Richard W.M. Jones" , QEMU Developers On 25 March 2014 14:13, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 25/03/2014 15:04, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> Yes, default for qemu-system-aarch64 is integratorcp, >> which even stupider than having that be the default >> for qemu-system-arm. >> >> For 2.1 when the system emulation stuff actually lands >> I think I'll just remove the default and force users >> to specify a machine. (In fact it's very tempting to >> do that for qemu-system-arm as well since the set of >> users who don't specify a machine because they expect >> ARM to be like x86 here is much larger than the set of >> users who really wanted integratorcp...) > > > Could "virt" be a sane default for qemu-system-arm? > 2.0 might be the right time to change it. Really I don't think there is a sane default at all for ARM. Boards are just too different and you must know which one you want. Anything other than "the user must always specify" is just too confusing for people who are expecting something closer to x86 monoculture. If we want to remove the default for both for 2.0 I'm happy to do that -- it's a oneliner. thanks -- PMM