[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7fb8af561eda06444ee0e0c592147af7@walle.cc>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:19:03 +0100
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
Cc: vigneshr@...com, p.yadav@...com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic
out of the core
Am 2021-03-06 10:50, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
> It makes the core file a bit smaller and provides better separation
> between the Software Write Protection features and the core logic.
> All the next generic software write protection features (e.g.
> Individual
> Block Protection) will reside in swp.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
> ---
[..]
> @@ -3554,6 +3152,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char
> *name,
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> + if (nor->params->locking_ops)
Should this be in spi_nor_register_locking_ops(), too? I.e.
void spi_nor_register_locking_ops() {
if (!nor->params->locking_ops)
return;
..
}
I don't have a strong opinion on that so far. I just noticed because
I put the check into spi_nor_otp_init() for my OTP series. They should
be the same though.
> + spi_nor_register_locking_ops(nor);
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists