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

[Vignesh Raghavendra]

On 3/17/21 2:35 PM, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 17/03/21 06:09AM, Tudor.Ambarus at 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.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 ?
>>
>> 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.
> 

I don't have hard objection to swp.c. As Pratyush suggested, a comment
at top of the file indicating the purpose would be good to have.