On 17/03/21 06:09AM, tudor.amba...@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.amba...@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.amba...@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. > > >>> > >> > > 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. -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav Texas Instruments Inc.
