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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YmdCnWRu6AgBlsEH@robh.at.kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:53:49 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     David Heidelberg <david@...t.cz>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        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 Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 04:05:57PM +0200, 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..
> > 
> > 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).
> 
> I personally encountered situation, where usage GPL license without specific
> `-only` or `-or-later` caused unnecessary confusion and uncertainty.

I don't mind changing these, but please do a tree wide change for all 
bindings, not an 'while I'm here also change X' change.

Rob