Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: edac: al-mc-edac: Amazon's Annapurna Labs Memory Controller EDAC | From | "Shenhar, Talel" <> | Date | Thu, 7 May 2020 17:44:09 +0300 |
| |
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@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.
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
| |