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;
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:57:12 +0530
From:   Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
To:     <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
CC:     <michael@walle.cc>, <vigneshr@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
Message-ID: <20210315082710.l7esv3kwickj6yg3@ti.com>
References: <20210306095002.22983-1-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
 <20210306095002.22983-5-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
 <7fb8af561eda06444ee0e0c592147af7@walle.cc>
 <65691b2a-134d-b1f2-617e-5ef09df9a742@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <65691b2a-134d-b1f2-617e-5ef09df9a742@microchip.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Precedence: bulk

On 15/03/21 06:09AM, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
> On 3/6/21 1:19 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> > 
> > 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;
> > ..
> > }
> 
> Yes, the checking should be done inside spi_nor_register_locking_ops,
> will move it.
> 
> Btw, what do you find a better name, spi_nor_register_locking_ops or
> spi_nor_init_locking_ops? Applies to OTP as well.

On a quick glance, spi_nor_register_locking_ops() can be mistaken to 
mean "Register locking ops". That is, ops to lock/unlock flash 
registers. If you do want to keep using "register", IMO 
spi_nor_locking_ops_register() would be better.

> 
> Thanks,
> ta
> 
> > 
> > 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
> 

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
Texas Instruments Inc.