Re: does drive_get_next(IF_NONE) make sense?

[Kevin Wolf]

Am 15.11.2021 um 06:31 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
> 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.

Same question as for Hao Wu's series: Wouldn't the proper solution be to
add a drive property to the machine type?

If you can't use -blockdev, it's not done right.

Kevin