lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core
Date
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?

>>>
>>

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.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-17 07:11    [W:1.908 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site