On Wednesday 02 July 2014 11:06:38 Tanmay Inamdar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This is a useful function and we should make it visible outside the
> > generic PCI code. Export it as a GPL symbol.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Tanmay Inamdar <tinamdar@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/host-bridge.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/host-bridge.c b/drivers/pci/host-bridge.c
> > index 0e5f3c9..36c669e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/host-bridge.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/host-bridge.c
> > @@ -16,12 +16,13 @@ static struct pci_bus *find_pci_root_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > return bus;
> > }
> >
> > -static struct pci_host_bridge *find_pci_host_bridge(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > +struct pci_host_bridge *find_pci_host_bridge(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > {
> > struct pci_bus *root_bus = find_pci_root_bus(bus);
> >
> > return to_pci_host_bridge(root_bus->bridge);
> > }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(find_pci_host_bridge);
>
> Is there any specific reason behind making this symbol GPL? I think
> the other functions in this file are just EXPORT_SYMBOL. Ultimately
> companies which have non gpl Linux modules (nvidia) will face issue
> using this API.
>
> The same applies to 'of_create_pci_host_bridge'.
I think EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() is better here. The new symbols are unlikely
to be used by a peripheral device driver, and PCI host controllers are
already restricted by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
nvidia will certainly not do a PCI host controller driver that is not
upstream or not GPL-compatible.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
