Date:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:54:30 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "phil.edworthy@...esas.com" <phil.edworthy@...esas.com>,
        "dmurphy@...com" <dmurphy@...com>,
        "linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mchehab+samsung@...nel.org" <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        "alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        "lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        "jacek.anaszewski@...il.com" <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        "mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        "a.zummo@...ertech.it" <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        "linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "noralf@...nnes.org" <noralf@...nnes.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "bgolaszewski@...libre.com" <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
        "sboyd@...nel.org" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com" <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/15] mfd: bd71828: Support ROHM BD71828 PMIC - core

On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:

> Hello Lee,
> 
> On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 16:46 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > 
> > > BD71828GW is a single-chip power management IC for battery-powered
> > > portable
> > > devices. The IC integrates 7 buck converters, 7 LDOs, and a 1500 mA
> > > single-cell linear charger. Also included is a Coulomb counter, a
> > > real-time
> > > clock (RTC), 3 GPO/regulator control pins, HALL input and a 32.768
> > > kHz
> > > clock gate.
> > > 
> > > Add MFD core driver providing interrupt controller facilities and
> > > i2c
> > > access to sub device drivers.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Changes since v5:
> > > - No changes
> > > 
> > >  drivers/mfd/Kconfig              |  15 ++
> > >  drivers/mfd/Makefile             |   2 +-
> > >  drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c       | 319 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd71828.h | 425
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  include/linux/mfd/rohm-generic.h |   1 +
> > >  5 files changed, 761 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >  create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c
> > >  create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd71828.h
> > 
> > Couple of small nits.  Once fixed, please apply my:
> > 
> > For my own reference:
> >   Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> > > index 420900852166..c3c9432ef51c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> > > @@ -1906,6 +1906,21 @@ config MFD_ROHM_BD70528
> > >  	  10 bits SAR ADC for battery temperature monitor and 1S
> > > battery
> > >  	  charger.
> > >  
> > > +config MFD_ROHM_BD71828
> > > +	tristate "ROHM BD71828 Power Management IC"
> > > +	depends on I2C=y
> > > +	depends on OF
> > > +	select REGMAP_I2C
> > > +	select REGMAP_IRQ
> > > +	select MFD_CORE
> > > +	help
> > > +	  Select this option to get support for the ROHM BD71828 Power
> > > +	  Management IC. BD71828GW is a single-chip power management IC
> > > for
> > > +	  battery-powered portable devices. The IC integrates 7 buck
> > > +	  converters, 7 LDOs, and a 1500 mA single-cell linear charger.
> > > +	  Also included is a Coulomb counter, a real-time clock (RTC),
> > > and
> > > +	  a 32.768 kHz clock gate.
> > > +
> > >  config MFD_STM32_LPTIMER
> > >  	tristate "Support for STM32 Low-Power Timer"
> > >  	depends on (ARCH_STM32 && OF) || COMPILE_TEST
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Makefile b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> > > index aed99f08739f..ca2d55c679c5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> > > @@ -252,6 +252,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_MXS_LRADC)     += mxs-lradc.o
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_SC27XX_PMIC)	+= sprd-sc27xx-spi.o
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_RAVE_SP_CORE)	+= rave-sp.o
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_ROHM_BD70528)	+= rohm-bd70528.o
> > > +obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_ROHM_BD71828)	+= rohm-bd71828.o
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_ROHM_BD718XX)	+= rohm-bd718x7.o
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_STMFX) 	+= stmfx.o
> > > -
> > 
> > Nit: This is an unrelated change and should not really be in this
> > patch.
> 
> Ok. Will get rid of it.
> 
> > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c b/drivers/mfd/rohm-
> > > bd71828.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..7f445d699fd9
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,319 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > > +//
> > > +// Copyright (C) 2019 ROHM Semiconductors
> > > +//
> > > +// ROHM BD71828 PMIC driver
> > > +
> 
> //snip
> 
> > > +
> > > +static struct i2c_driver bd71828_drv = {
> > > +	.driver = {
> > > +		.name = "rohm-bd71828",
> > > +		.of_match_table = bd71828_of_match,
> > > +	},
> > > +	.probe_new = &bd71828_i2c_probe,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > 
> > Nit: You can remove this line.
> 
> Will do.
> 
> > 
> > > +module_i2c_driver(bd71828_drv);
> > > +
> > > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
> > > ");
> > > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ROHM BD71828 Power Management IC driver");
> > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > 
> > This does not match the header.
> 
> How is that? This is what is stated in module.h for the 
> MODULE_LICENSE:
> 
> /*
>  * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating
> free
>  * software modules
>  *
>  *	"GPL"				[GNU Public License v2]
>  *	"GPL v2"			[GNU Public License v2]
>  *	"GPL and additional rights"	[GNU Public License v2 rights
> and more]
>  *	"Dual BSD/GPL"			[GNU Public License v2
>  *					 or BSD license choice]
>  *	"Dual MIT/GPL"			[GNU Public License v2
>  *					 or MIT license choice]
>  *	"Dual MPL/GPL"			[GNU Public License v2
>  *					 or Mozilla license choice]
>  *
>  * The following other idents are available
>  *
>  *	"Proprietary"			[Non free products]
>  *
>  * Both "GPL v2" and "GPL" (the latter also in dual licensed strings)
> are
>  * merely stating that the module is licensed under the GPL v2, but are
> not
>  * telling whether "GPL v2 only" or "GPL v2 or later". The reason why
> there
>  * are two variants is a historic and failed attempt to convey more
>  * information in the MODULE_LICENSE string. For module loading the
>  * "only/or later" distinction is completely irrelevant and does
> neither
>  * replace the proper license identifiers in the corresponding source
> file
>  * nor amends them in any way. The sole purpose is to make the
>  * 'Proprietary' flagging work and to refuse to bind symbols which are
>  * exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL when a non free module is loaded.
>  *
>  * In the same way "BSD" is not a clear license information. It merely
>  * states, that the module is licensed under one of the compatible BSD
>  * license variants. The detailed and correct license information is
> again
>  * to be found in the corresponding source files.
>  *
>  * There are dual licensed components, but when running with Linux it
> is the
>  * GPL that is relevant so this is a non issue. Similarly LGPL linked
> with GPL
>  * is a GPL combined work.
>  *
>  * This exists for several reasons
>  * 1.	So modinfo can show license info for users wanting to vet their
> setup
>  *	is free
>  * 2.	So the community can ignore bug reports including proprietary
> modules
>  * 3.	So vendors can do likewise based on their own policies
>  */
> #define MODULE_LICENSE(_license) MODULE_INFO(license, _license)
> 
> I have no objections on changing the license if needed but can you
> please tell me what is Ok combos then - I am having hard time when
> trying to select licenses which are acceptable for all.

If you have this in your header:

  GPL-2.0-only

Your MODULE tags should read:

MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Powered by blists - more mailing lists