Messages in this thread | | | Subject | [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: edac: al-mc-edac: Amazon's Annapurna Labs Memory Controller EDAC | From | "Shenhar, Talel" <> | Date | Tue, 5 May 2020 13:44:43 +0300 |
| |
Rob and other DT folks,
Can you please help with below query?
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@amazon.com> >> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.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@^Documentation/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@v3.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.
Thanks, Talel.
> > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |