On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 2:10 AM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 15/11/2021 08.12, Alistair Francis wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 3:32 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > > 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?
It just says "one time programmable memory". I'm guessing it's sometype of eFuse. Alistair > > Thomas >