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?
Thomas
