Re: does drive_get_next(IF_NONE) make sense?

[Peter Maydell]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 13:34, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On 03/11/2021 09.41, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@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 :-)

-- PMM