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

[Vignesh Raghavendra]

On 3/9/21 12:58 PM, Tudor.Ambarus at 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.ambarus at 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 ?
>>
> 
> I thought about the SWP configs that we have.
> 
> How about keeping swp.c and rename configs to:
> s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE/MTD_SPI_NOR_DISABLE_BOOT_SWP
> s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE_ON_VOLATILE/MTD_SPI_DISABLE_BOOT_SWP_ON_VOLATILE
> s/MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_KEEP/MTD_SPI_NOR_KEEP_BOOT_SWP
> 
> The renamed configs should better indicate that the software write protection
> is disabled just at boot time, while the locking support is still enabled.
> Otherwise one may think that with a MTD_SPI_NOR_SWP_DISABLE, all the
> software write protection features are stripped/not available.
> 

I am not a fan of renaming Kconfig options as it breaks make
olddefconfig flow which many developers rely on.

Regards
Vignesh