On 3/6/21 1:19 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe
>
> Am 2021-03-06 10:50, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
>> 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.amba...@microchip.com>
>> ---
>
> [..]
>
>> @@ -3554,6 +3152,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char
>> *name,
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> + if (nor->params->locking_ops)
>
> Should this be in spi_nor_register_locking_ops(), too? I.e.
>
> void spi_nor_register_locking_ops() {
> if (!nor->params->locking_ops)
> return;
> ..
> }
Yes, the checking should be done inside spi_nor_register_locking_ops,
will move it.
Btw, what do you find a better name, spi_nor_register_locking_ops or
spi_nor_init_locking_ops? Applies to OTP as well.
Thanks,
ta
>
> I don't have a strong opinion on that so far. I just noticed because
> I put the check into spi_nor_otp_init() for my OTP series. They should
> be the same though.
>
>> + spi_nor_register_locking_ops(nor);
>
> -michael
