On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 11:39:05AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 18:22:34 +0200, Andrea Bolognani via Devel wrote:
> > +++ b/tests/qemuxmlconfdata/armv7l-versatilepb-minimal.armv7l-latest.args
> > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
> > XDG_CONFIG_HOME=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/domain--1-armv7ltest/.config \
> > -rtc base=utc \
> > -no-shutdown \
> > -boot strict=on \
> > --device '{"driver":"pci-ohci","id":"usb","bus":"pci","addr":"0x1"}' \
> > +-device '{"driver":"qemu-xhci","id":"usb","bus":"pci","addr":"0x1"}' \
>
> This change seems to have happened also in code paths not allowing ABI
> update at least according to the filename.
It only affects domains for which a model was not picked in the past.
So effectively only new domains, regardless of the flags. Existing
domains will keep using whatever model they're configured to use.
> > +++ b/tests/qemuxmlconfdata/ppc-mac99-minimal.ppc-latest.abi-update.xml
> > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
> > <on_crash>destroy</on_crash>
> > <devices>
> > <emulator>/usr/bin/qemu-system-ppc</emulator>
> > - <controller type='usb' index='0' model='piix3-uhci'>
> > + <controller type='usb' index='0' model='pci-ohci'>
>
> I think I need to think about this a bit more. I agree that the
> controller we picked didn't make sense for this machine, but in cases
> when it did work (e.g. when you run linux with the proper driver) you
> get something which doesn't resemble real hardware but likely works
> better than 'pci-ohci'.
>
> So I'm not sure about the downgrade in this case, although we're
> unlikely to break anything that'd be used widely in this case, breaking
> it would go against our philosophy
Is pci-ohci really a downgrade compared to piix3-uhci? They're both
USB1 controllers. They should both have wide driver support and
provide basic USB functionality. One just looks silly for non-x86
machines.
Plus as mentioned above existing guests will retain the existing
model, so no actual breakage will happen.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
