On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 10:59:16AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 10:57, Hao Zeng <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2023-05-15 at 09:52 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > Overall, IMHO, we should keep QXL restricted to as few build > > > scenarios > > > as possible. Given the status of SPICE, possibly we'll even want to > > > deprecate it on x86 eventually, not add it to more arches. > > > > > > What are you seeing as the compelling use case that requires QXL to > > > exist on aarch64 ? > > > Thank you for your answer, it made me learn a lot. No use case, just > > outside customer feedback on the ARM architecture qxl use has problems, > > I compiled the community qemu, found that the default does not support > > qxl display, so the submitted enablement. > > I agree with you, please ignore this commit. > > I would still like to know why QXL isn't automatically > enabled like every other PCI device...
Historical reasons ? Originally both QXL and SPICE were x86 only and SPICE was broken on big endian if you tried to build it. The orignal QXL code in QEMU had a hard dependancy on SPICE until an enhancement made it work with other backends. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
