[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <07f3b407-fa91-f3b4-bc7c-9692a7b3c3c7@amazon.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 17:44:09 +0300
From: "Shenhar, Talel" <talel@...zon.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC: <mchehab@...nel.org>, <james.morse@....com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
<mark.rutland@....com>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
<will@...nel.org>, <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
<benh@...nel.crashing.org>, <hhhawa@...zon.com>,
<ronenk@...zon.com>, <jonnyc@...zon.com>, <hanochu@...zon.com>,
<eitan@...zon.com>, <talel@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: edac: al-mc-edac: Amazon's Annapurna
Labs Memory Controller EDAC
On 5/5/2020 1:44 PM, Shenhar, Talel wrote:
>
> On 4/28/2020 2:06 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Talel Shenhar wrote:
>>> Document Amazon's Annapurna Labs Memory Controller EDAC SoC binding.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Talel Shenhar <talel@...zon.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>> .../bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml | 52
>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..20505f37c9f8
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> WARNING: DT binding documents should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR
>> BSD-2-Clause)
>> #36: FILE:
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml:1:
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>
>> Hi Rob, should I listen to checkpatch or ignore it?
>
> Rob and other dt folks,
>
> In continue to disscussion with Boris below, Looking at the checkpatch
> check:
>
> if ($realfile =~ m@...cumentation/devicetree/bindings/@ &&
> not $spdx_license =~/GPL-2\.0.*BSD-2-Clause/) {
>
> It wants the whole string "GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause" and my oatch
> has only "GPL-2.0-only".
>
> Now, looking at a bunch of .yaml DT files, there are all kinds of
> formatting:
>
> $ git grep -h SPDX *.yaml | sort | uniq -c
> 3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0)
> 313 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> 9 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> 1 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only)
> 43 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> 4 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause)
> 1 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause
> 148 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> 25 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> 104 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> 3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
> 2 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause)
> 1 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later)
> 5 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> 3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
> 2 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause
> 3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
> 3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> 3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11)
>
> And the patch which did rule is:
>
> commit 50c92900214dd9a55bcecc3c53e90d072aff6560
> Author: Lubomir Rintel<lkundrak@...sk>
> Date: Mon Apr 6 20:11:13 2020 -0700
>
> checkpatch: check proper licensing of Devicetree bindings
>
> According to Devicetree maintainers (see Link: below), the Devicetree
> binding documents are preferrably licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR
> BSD-2-Clause).
>
> Let's check that. The actual check is a bit more relaxed, to
> allow more
> liberal but compatible licensing (e.g. GPL-2.0-or-later OR
> BSD-2-Clause).
>
>
> Will love your help.
> This patch already have your (Rob) Reviewed-by so Boris and myself are
> unsure what is the right thing to do now.
Borislav, after internal disscussion, we are good to go with the new
license.
This shall be part of v7.
>
> Thanks,
> Talel.
>
>>
>> --
>> Regards/Gruss,
>> Boris.
>>
>> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists