Re: does drive_get_next(IF_NONE) make sense?

[Alistair Francis]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 3:32 PM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 13:34, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On 03/11/2021 09.41, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> >> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Does it make sense for a device/board to do drive_get_next(IF_NONE) ?
> >> >> Short answer: hell, no!  ;)
> >> >
> >> > Would it make sense to add an "assert(type != IF_NONE)" to drive_get()
> >> > to avoid such mistakes in the future?
> >>
> >> Worth a try.
> >
> > You need to fix the sifive_u_otp device first :-)
>
> And for that, we may want Hao Wu's "[PATCH v4 5/7] blockdev: Add a new
> IF type IF_OTHER" first.

I can fixup sifive_u_otp, just let me know what the prefered solution is

Alistair