[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6016b725-a779-1d2c-9884-099c58f53557@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 11:53:40 +0530
From: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
To: <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>, <p.yadav@...com>, <michael@...le.cc>
CC: <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
On 3/9/21 12:58 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 3/8/21 7:28 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 3/6/21 3:20 PM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>> 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>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/Makefile | 2 +-
>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 407 +---------------------------------
>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.h | 4 +
>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/swp.c | 419 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Hmmm, name swp.c does not seem intuitive to me. How about expanding it a
>> bit:
>>
>> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?
>>
>
> I thought about the SWP configs that we have.
>
> How about keeping swp.c and rename configs to:
> s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE/MTD_SPI_NOR_DISABLE_BOOT_SWP
> s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE_ON_VOLATILE/MTD_SPI_DISABLE_BOOT_SWP_ON_VOLATILE
> s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_KEEP/MTD_SPI_NOR_KEEP_BOOT_SWP
>
> The renamed configs should better indicate that the software write protection
> is disabled just at boot time, while the locking support is still enabled.
> Otherwise one may think that with a MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE, all the
> software write protection features are stripped/not available.
>
I am not a fan of renaming Kconfig options as it breaks make
olddefconfig flow which many developers rely on.
Regards
Vignesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists