Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:46:35AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 20:03, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> > Am 18.07.2022 um 11:49 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> > > An OTP device isn't really a parallel flash, and neither are eFuses. >> > > More fast-and-lose use of IF_PFLASH may exist in the tree, and maybe of >> > > other interface types, too. >> > > >> > > This patch introduces IF_OTHER. The patch after next uses it for an >> > > EEPROM device. >> > > >> > > Do we want IF_OTHER? >> > >> > What would the semantics even be? Any block device that doesn't pick up >> > a different category may pick up IF_OTHER backends? >> > >> > It certainly feels like a strange interface to ask for "other" disk and >> > then getting as surprise what this other thing might be. It's >> > essentially the same as having an explicit '-device other', and I >> > suppose most people would find that strange. >> > >> > > If no, I guess we get to abuse IF_PFLASH some more. >> > > >> > > If yes, I guess we should use IF_PFLASH only for actual parallel flash >> > > memory going forward. Cleaning up existing abuse of IF_PFLASH may not >> > > be worth the trouble, though. >> > > >> > > Thoughts? >> > >> > If the existing types aren't good enough (I don't have an opinion on >> > whether IF_PFLASH is a good match), let's add a new one. But a specific >> > new one, not just "other". >> >> I think the common thread is "this isn't what anybody actually thinks >> of as being a 'disk', but we would like to back it with a block device >> anyway". That can cover a fair range of possibilities... > > Given that, do we even want/have to use -drive for this ? We can use > -blockdev for the backend and reference that from any -device we want > to create, and leave -drive out of the picture entirely
-drive is our only means to configure onboard devices. We've talked about better means a few times, but no conclusions. I can dig up pointers, if you're interested.
