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=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:43:58 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
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: <65691b2a-134d-b1f2-617e-5ef09df9a742@microchip.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>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11
Message-ID: <b3c6bf8a225711f678eeee2d72ac603f@walle.cc>
Precedence: bulk

Am 2021-03-15 07:09, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com:
> 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.

probably register_locking_ops(), as long as the function just does
that.

For OTP, I want to provide nvmem support, too. Thus it will not
only register the mtd ops and thus spi_nor_otp_init() will be
better for my case.

-michael