Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 22 July 2013 16:25, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: >> Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: >>> Am 22.07.2013 13:34, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>> Looking at all of the '-cpu help' output, alpha seems to be >>>> the odd one out here: none of the others list valid CPUs >>>> with "-$arch-cpu" suffixes. >>> >>> Right, because all others had implemented -cpu ? before we introduced >>> that naming scheme and I tried to keep output compatibility for them. >>> Focus for alpha was therefore on -cpu foo compatibility only. >>> >>> Anthony had clearly stated on a KVM call that using full type names for >>> future CPU hot-add was the right thing to do and possibly even composite >>> convenience types like 4core-xeonblabla-x86_64-cpu; how that relates to >>> -cpu and new targets was never clearly defined though. ;) >> >> That's pretty gross, but yes, we should have: >> >> qemu -device Xeon-E5-4610,id=sock0 -device Xeon-E5-4610,id=sock1 >> >> Which effectively does: >> >> qemu -cpu SandyBridge -smp cores=6,threads=2,sockets=2 >> >> By today's standards. > > That doesn't really answer the question of "should the argument > to -cpu be a QOM typename or a human friendly name?"
They shouldn't be different things IMHO. > though > (though I note none of your -cpu or -device argument examples > are QOM type names, since they're missing the -$arch-cpu suffix). I'm not sure the rationale of $arch-cpu but I think having a forced suffix is a bad idea. >> I think this applies equally well to other architecture. >> Model hardware more closely. > > For ARM this would mean "don't support -cpu at all, it > is always hardwired by the board model" :-) Is that a bad thing? I really hate the -cpu option. I hope it dies a horrible bitrotten death over time once -device can be used to replace it. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- PMM