linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 0/9] Support i.MX8 SoCs pinctrl drivers built as module

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:   Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:49:36 +0300
From:   Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>
To:     Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>,
        Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>,
        "festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
        "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "stefan@...er.ch" <stefan@...er.ch>,
        "kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        "linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Cc:     dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/9] Support i.MX8 SoCs pinctrl drivers built as module


On 11.06.2020 11:44, Anson Huang wrote:
> Hi, Daniel
>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/9] Support i.MX8 SoCs pinctrl drivers built as module
>>
>> Hi Anson,
>>
>> Patch series mostly looks good to me. I have a comment about adding
>>
>> the MODULE_LICENSE. This is a pretty important change.
>>
>>
>> Can you please add this change in a separate patch with a proper explanation
>>
>> of why it is needed.
>>
>>
>> Most likely it is because it was forgotten in the previous patches.
> Yes, it is obviously missed in the previous patches, as previously these pinctrl drivers
> do NOT support module build at all.
>
> And MODULE_LICENSE is a MUST when drivers supporting module build, build will report failure
> if module license missed, so I think it is also part of the module build support patch,
> do you mean it is better to add a separate patch to add the MODULE_LICENSE to all pinctrl drivers missing it?
> Maybe we can get more opinion from maintainer, I am NOT very sure whether it is better to separate
> the module license as a single patch....


Hi Anson,

This is my feeling. That the first patch in the series should add the 
MODULE_LICENSE to all

of files.

This keeps things simple, explains our intention with next patches.

Daniel.