Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] blockdev: Add a new IF type IF_OTHER

[Peter Maydell]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 20:03, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@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...

thanks
-- PMM