Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

[Michael Walle]

Am 2021-03-17 07:09, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  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