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 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=-14.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,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 57E71C433E0 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:22:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D304164F92 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:22:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D304164F92 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=walle.cc Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-mtd-bounces+linux-mtd=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=Sender:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From :Date:MIME-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=sLWFaZjEssBvB98+L/A0czORRvOHjww0iG8CneYYz/k=; b=O9nSR8DKz1Al0xYLsgmHfo2Dz YVrXu4h+t8+ckpPR9oB5uvC8pBIzkfv5WnkwdPSA/Fcf/+IzZF3subGgsbjGsxCwNwmo2NukCP9t3 17vqLW65cG57RjWypBPGN3daaHcQYCMZJFy7LB2SZS45LeOEH9wiHQ3PDFYYp72k11OQxSnVlYyLX 8yM6E3WyUwd2kT/T47qQtIsZKvxj/nYZ1osvoBG37jOAWI2Cht3WwQEvDgax+Mj9rKNV4+2skuOTS AZi7h1Twpv4TD+j+qYyQIaF5mlFw+vQ7aDCqHucqxMlMES3tJx5k/d4n6BELRekngelW+r3E8G/xA JDBEHzZ4A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=desiato.infradead.org) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lMRR1-002jpG-KJ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:21:43 +0000 Received: from ssl.serverraum.org ([176.9.125.105]) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lMRQv-002jo8-P1 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:21:41 +0000 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 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 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20210317_082138_344722_566C4B76 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 11.82 ) X-BeenThere: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "linux-mtd" Errors-To: linux-mtd-bounces+linux-mtd=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.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 ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/