From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEB1C433E9 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7470D64F96 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229739AbhCQIWK (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:22:10 -0400 Received: from ssl.serverraum.org ([176.9.125.105]:35509 "EHLO ssl.serverraum.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229632AbhCQIVg (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:21:36 -0400 Received: from ssl.serverraum.org (web.serverraum.org [172.16.0.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ssl.serverraum.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AB3B22255; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:21:32 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=walle.cc; s=mail2016061301; t=1615969294; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=UyKNx2MYFWz0kJgEDgATo7j4IS8GZ7xQ4SVeMgtlp9g=; b=i/BRY4sfOhudWHjLImUF7RlfJgcXFgdevwEJqw90SPJdhdqlqhnKQg1TrWBCZQuvOuc/gp 5wR3hmbQIksa6xPL6XCGfTqlBZJO50H6wZLHokpTR/lQzMUxhUTjwSVV7WFnwMcTxyh8df wxecIH4nU4JXztn8qPHrz9YQjUMlQkU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:21:31 +0100 From: Michael Walle To: Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com 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 In-Reply-To: <45d00a12-cb79-774e-f8e8-d65602629a90@microchip.com> References: <20210306095002.22983-1-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> <20210306095002.22983-5-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> <963232a4-9100-ebca-927c-7f5a1e947fbe@ti.com> <9889bae0-8eba-7cbc-d9bb-04e038bd28c8@microchip.com> <6016b725-a779-1d2c-9884-099c58f53557@ti.com> <45d00a12-cb79-774e-f8e8-d65602629a90@microchip.com> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11 Message-ID: X-Sender: michael@walle.cc Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >>>>> --- >>>>> 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