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@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../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@xxxxx>
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
