Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:19:03 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
To:     Tudor Ambarus <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: <20210306095002.22983-5-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
References: <20210306095002.22983-1-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
 <20210306095002.22983-5-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11
Message-ID: <7fb8af561eda06444ee0e0c592147af7@walle.cc>
Precedence: bulk

Am 2021-03-06 10:50, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
> 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@microchip.com>
> ---

[..]

> @@ -3554,6 +3152,9 @@ int spi_nor_scan(struct spi_nor *nor, const char 
> *name,
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
> 
> +	if (nor->params->locking_ops)

Should this be in spi_nor_register_locking_ops(), too? I.e.

void spi_nor_register_locking_ops() {
     if (!nor->params->locking_ops)
         return;
..
}

I don't have a strong opinion on that so far. I just noticed because
I put the check into spi_nor_otp_init() for my OTP series. They should
be the same though.

> +		spi_nor_register_locking_ops(nor);

-michael