From: <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
To: <michael@walle.cc>
Cc: <vigneshr@ti.com>, <p.yadav@ti.com>,
<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
<richard@nod.at>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:30:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fe28e8f9-a3a5-b445-e7fc-01c8743bacbe@microchip.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a9e1e18c034dfa185eeb5492acf2dff7@walle.cc>
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@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?
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-17 9:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-06 9:49 [PATCH v2 0/5] mtd: spi-nor: Cleanup patches Tudor Ambarus
2021-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] mtd: spi-nor: core: Advance erase after the erase cmd has been completed Tudor Ambarus
2021-03-06 9:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mtd: spi-nor: core: Add vdbg msg for spi_nor_erase_multi_sectors() Tudor Ambarus
2021-03-08 6:21 ` Pratyush Yadav
2021-03-06 9:50 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] mtd: spi-nor: Get rid of duplicated argument in spi_nor_parse_sfdp() Tudor Ambarus
2021-03-08 6:26 ` Pratyush Yadav
2021-03-06 9:50 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core Tudor Ambarus
2021-03-06 11:19 ` Michael Walle
2021-03-15 6:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2021-03-15 8:27 ` Pratyush Yadav
2021-03-15 8:43 ` Michael Walle
2021-03-08 17:28 ` Vignesh Raghavendra
2021-03-09 7:28 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2021-03-15 6:23 ` Vignesh Raghavendra
2021-03-17 6:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2021-03-17 8:21 ` Michael Walle
2021-03-17 9:30 ` Tudor.Ambarus [this message]
2021-03-17 17:50 ` Michael Walle
2021-03-17 9:05 ` Pratyush Yadav
2021-03-17 16:14 ` Vignesh Raghavendra
2021-03-06 9:50 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Drop 'else' after 'return' Tudor Ambarus
2021-03-08 6:28 ` Pratyush Yadav
2021-03-15 6:53 ` Joe Perches
2021-03-15 11:24 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2021-03-15 14:43 ` Joe Perches
2021-03-17 5:55 ` (subset) [PATCH v2 0/5] mtd: spi-nor: Cleanup patches Tudor Ambarus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fe28e8f9-a3a5-b445-e7fc-01c8743bacbe@microchip.com \
--to=tudor.ambarus@microchip.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=michael@walle.cc \
--cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=p.yadav@ti.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox