Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:21:31 +0100 | From | Michael Walle <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core |
| |
Am 2021-03-17 07:09, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.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@microchip.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@microchip.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?
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 ;)
-michael
| |