[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fe28e8f9-a3a5-b445-e7fc-01c8743bacbe@microchip.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:30:23 +0000
From: <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To: <michael@...le.cc>
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
On 3/17/21 10:21 AM, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> Am 2021-03-17 07:09, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com:
>> 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?
>
> It's just an internal name, thus as long as it remotely makes sense,
> I'm fine. It's just a matter of taste, isn't it?
Sure, it's a matter of preference. What's yours?
>
> But here's one technical reason that would bother me more: name
> clashes between the core modules: core, sfdp, otp, swp and the
> vendor names. It is very unlikely, but there is a non-zero chance ;)
>
We can move all manufacturers to a manufacturers/ folder. Each manufacturer
driver will have to #include "../core.h", about what I have some mixed
feelings.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists