Re: does drive_get_next(IF_NONE) make sense?

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

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