[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:14:56 +0100
From: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/2] net: ethernet: socionext: add AVE
ethernet driver
Dear Masami-san,
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Masami Hiramatsu
<masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org> wrote:
[...]
> Then what I'm considering is copyright notice lines. Those are usually
> treat as the header lines, not single line. So
>
>> +// SDPX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +// sni_ave.c - Socionext UniPhier AVE ethernet driver
>> +// Copyright 2014 Panasonic Corporation
>> +// Copyright 2015-2017 Socionext Inc.
>
> is acceptable? or should we keep C-style header lines for new drivers?
>
>> +// SDPX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/*
>> + * sni_ave.c - Socionext UniPhier AVE ethernet driver
>> + * Copyright 2014 Panasonic Corporation
>> + * Copyright 2015-2017 Socionext Inc.
>> + */
>
> I just concern that those lines are not "single". that's all. :)
My voice carries the weight of a down feather in this discussion and
to me the benefit of the first form is that you have removed two
lines. Both forms work fine.
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
Powered by blists - more mailing lists