linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom-ipcc: add missing compatible for SM8450

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]

Message-ID: <6ce4f8a6-42c0-2f49-bd19-744d8cca716b@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:11:21 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom-ipcc: add missing
 compatible for SM8450

On 25/04/2022 16:05, David Heidelberg wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 15:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/04/2022 15:47, David Heidelberg wrote:
>>> Adds forgotten compatible and update SPDX header.
>> You need to explain what is this "forgotten compatible". It's to vague.
> Forgotten by someone who implemented it in driver. Hope that clarify it 
> for you and possibly other readers. Btw. qcom,*sm8450* compatibles are 
> widely used and fact that `make dtbs_check` noticed it missing here 
> isn't suprising..

This has to be in the commit msg, that you document compatibles already
being used. "forgotten" does not explain that.

>>
>> The SPDX update lacks answer to "why". There is no reason to do it, so
>> please explain why it is needed.
> 
> Please read https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0.html (red colored text).

The kernel lists it as valid SPDX and we did not deprecate it. For the
kernel it is still considered valid.

Feel free to propose otherwise but then you need to explain it in commit
msg and update LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0.

> 
> I personally encountered situation, where usage GPL license without 
> specific `-only` or `-or-later` caused unnecessary confusion and 
> uncertainty.

Could be, I am not arguing with it. Yet kernel explicitly makes it a
valid SPDX.

Best regards,
Krzysztof