linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: power: Add Actions Semi S900 SPS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:40:52 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To:     Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, liuwei@...ions-semi.com,
        96boards@...obotics.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        amit.kucheria@...aro.org, hzhang@...obotics.com,
        bdong@...obotics.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, manivannanece23@...il.com,
        Jeff Chen <jeff.chen@...ions-semi.com>,
        "Thomas C. Liau" <thomas.liau@...ions-semi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: power: Add Actions Semi S900 SPS

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 03:57:13PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:11:17PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..f1aaf761112b
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > 
> > > checkpatch.pl warns about this line due to not using /* ... */ syntax
> > > for headers. I could fix that up on my own, but it made me realize that
> > > you are licensing this file under GPL-2.0+ only, whereas the .dts[i] is
> > > supposed to be dual-licensed.
> > > 
> > > Can you please give your consent to make this
> > > 
> > > /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> > > 
> > 
> > You can change the license to GPL-2.0+ OR MIT.
> > 
> > > like my S500 and S700 bindings?
> > > 
> > > Question: Should it still be GPL-2.0+ or the new GPL-2.0-or-later?
> > >
> > 
> > I think GPL-2.0+ is fine.
> 
> So... when I saw this I did wonder why one would knowly choose to use a
> deprecated license identifier (https://spdx.org/licenses/ ).
> 
> However running `git diff v4.17..v4.18-rc1` through some filters does
> indicate that GPL-2.0+ is the more popular choice by 256 to 0! Doesn't
> mean you couldn't break the mould though ;-).
>

I did grep through the source and hit with same numbers ;-) But I was not
sure whether to break the mould or not, so chose the safest path :)

Since you already gave the green signal, I think we can move to new style
identifier.

Thanks,
Mani 
> 
> Daniel.