Re: does drive_get_next(IF_NONE) make sense?

[Alistair Francis]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 2:10 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

It just says "one time programmable memory". I'm guessing it's
sometype of eFuse.

Alistair

>
>   Thomas
>