Am 15.11.2021 um 06:31 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > > > On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 13:34, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > On 03/11/2021 09.41, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> >> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@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
