Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core | From | Vignesh Raghavendra <> | Date | Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:44:25 +0530 |
| |
On 3/17/21 2:35 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > On 17/03/21 06:09AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.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@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? > > 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. >
I don't have hard objection to swp.c. As Pratyush suggested, a comment at top of the file indicating the purpose would be good to have.
| |