On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 04:56:15PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > 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.
For onboard pflash with x86, we've just got properties against the machine that we can point to a blockdev. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
