Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] hw: Replace drive_get_next() by drive_get()

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 at 12:55, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> drive_get_next() is basically a bad idea.  It returns the "next" block
>> backend of a certain interface type.  "Next" means bus=0,unit=N, where
>> subsequent calls count N up from zero, per interface type.
>>
>> This lets you define unit numbers implicitly by execution order.  If the
>> order changes, or new calls appear "in the middle", unit numbers change.
>> ABI break.  Hard to spot in review.
>>
>> Explicit is better than implicit: use drive_get() directly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  include/sysemu/blockdev.h           |  1 -
>>  blockdev.c                          | 10 ----------
>>  hw/arm/aspeed.c                     | 21 +++++++++++++--------
>>  hw/arm/cubieboard.c                 |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/imx25_pdk.c                  |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/integratorcp.c               |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/mcimx6ul-evk.c               |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/mcimx7d-sabre.c              |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/msf2-som.c                   |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/npcm7xx_boards.c             |  6 +++---
>>  hw/arm/orangepi.c                   |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/raspi.c                      |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/realview.c                   |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/sabrelite.c                  |  2 +-
>>  hw/arm/versatilepb.c                |  4 ++--
>>  hw/arm/vexpress.c                   |  6 +++---
>>  hw/arm/xilinx_zynq.c                | 16 +++++++++-------
>>  hw/arm/xlnx-versal-virt.c           |  3 ++-
>>  hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c                |  6 +++---
>>  hw/microblaze/petalogix_ml605_mmu.c |  2 +-
>>  hw/misc/sifive_u_otp.c              |  2 +-
>>  hw/riscv/microchip_pfsoc.c          |  2 +-
>>  hw/sparc64/niagara.c                |  2 +-
>>  23 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>
> This would be easier to review if it didn't try to change all of
> these board/SoC models at once. Each one of them is entirely
> separate review work.

Happy to split, but first I'd like to get some advice on the part I'm
unsure about; see my cover letter.