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 "-$arch-cpu" suffixes. >> >> Right, because all others had implemented -cpu ? before we introduced >> that naming scheme and I tried to keep output compatibility for them. >> Focus for alpha was therefore on -cpu foo compatibility only. >> >> Anthony had clearly stated on a KVM call that using full type names for >> future CPU hot-add was the right thing to do and possibly even composite >> convenience types like 4core-xeonblabla-x86_64-cpu; how that relates to >> -cpu and new targets was never clearly defined though. ;) > > That's pretty gross, but yes, we should have: > > qemu -device Xeon-E5-4610,id=sock0 -device Xeon-E5-4610,id=sock1 > > Which effectively does: > > qemu -cpu SandyBridge -smp cores=6,threads=2,sockets=2 > > By today's standards.
That doesn't really answer the question of "should the argument to -cpu be a QOM typename or a human friendly name?" though (though I note none of your -cpu or -device argument examples are QOM type names, since they're missing the -$arch-cpu suffix). > I 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" :-) -- PMM
