Re: [PATCH for-6.2] hw/misc/sifive_u_otp: Use IF_PFLASH for the OTP device instead of IF_NONE

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>]

On 11/19/21 11:25, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Configuring a drive with "if=none" is meant for creation of a backend
> only, it should not get automatically assigned to a device frontend.
> Use "if=pflash" for the One-Time-Programmable device instead (like
> it is e.g. also done for the efuse device in hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c).
> 
> Since the old way of configuring the device has already been published
> with the previous QEMU versions, we cannot remove this immediately, but
> have to deprecate it and support it for at least two more releases.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> ---
>  docs/about/deprecated.rst | 6 ++++++
>  hw/misc/sifive_u_otp.c    | 9 ++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

> diff --git a/hw/misc/sifive_u_otp.c b/hw/misc/sifive_u_otp.c
> index 18aa0bd55d..cf6098ff2c 100644
> --- a/hw/misc/sifive_u_otp.c
> +++ b/hw/misc/sifive_u_otp.c
> @@ -209,7 +209,14 @@ static void sifive_u_otp_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>                            TYPE_SIFIVE_U_OTP, SIFIVE_U_OTP_REG_SIZE);
>      sysbus_init_mmio(SYS_BUS_DEVICE(dev), &s->mmio);
>  
> -    dinfo = drive_get_next(IF_NONE);
> +    dinfo = drive_get_next(IF_PFLASH);
> +    if (!dinfo) {
> +        dinfo = drive_get_next(IF_NONE);

Isn't it a bug to call drive_get_next() from DeviceRealize()?

Shouldn't drive_get_next() be restricted to the MachineClass?