[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210317090504.ra3vm76xexhaqg2l@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:35:06 +0530
From: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>
To: <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
CC: <vigneshr@...com>, <michael@...le.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 17/03/21 06:09AM, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 3/15/21 8:23 AM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >
> > 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 ?
>
> Having in mind that we have the SWP configs, I think I prefer swp.c.
> But let's see what majority thinks, we'll do as majority prefers.
> Michael, Pratyush?
I don't have much of an opinion on this tbh. But I usually prefer short
names so I'd go with swp.c here. Maybe also add a comment at the top of
the file mentioning the full name "Software Write Protection logic" or
something similar for clarification.
>
> >>>
> >>
>
> cut
>
> >
> > I am not a fan of renaming Kconfig options as it breaks make
> > olddefconfig flow which many developers rely on.
> >
>
> I'm fine keeping them as they are for now. If someone else screams we will
> reconsider.
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists