From: Avi K. <av...@re...> - 2009-11-05 09:05:14
|
On 11/04/2009 06:35 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Vincent Hanquez wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> On 11/03/2009 01:25 PM, Vincent Hanquez wrote: >>>> not sure if i'm missing the point here, but couldn't it be >>>> hypothetically >>>> extended to stuff 3d (or video& more 2d accel ?) commands too ? I >>>> can't >>>> imagine the cirrus or stdvga driver be able to do that ever ;) >>> cirrus has pretty good 2d acceleration. 3D is a mega-project though. >> >> absolutely huge indeed, but still alexander's code is pretty much the >> only way, to start such a project. with maybe added benefits on more >> and easier 2d acceleration. >> >> or otherwise wait for SR-IOV graphics cards (or similar tech)... > > I think the real question is do we paravirtualize a VGA device or a > framebuffer. > > Obviously, the advantage of doing a framebuffer is that it works for > s390. > > A VGA device has better backwards compatibility on PCs although it's > obviously more complex. In an ideal world, we could expose the virtio > framebuffer device as part of PCI device that was also VGA capable > (virtio-pci-vga transport?). > > But then there's QXL on the horizon which complicates matters further. > qxl is vga compatible. > I'd say that virtio-fb should just focus on the s390 use case for > now. Let things evolve as needed. > Sure. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function |