Re: does drive_get_next(IF_NONE) make sense?

[Thomas Huth]

On 15/11/2021 08.12, Alistair Francis wrote:
> 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

What kind of device is that OTP exactly? If it is some kind of non-serial 
flash device, maybe you could simply use IF_PFLASH instead?

 Thomas