Hi Laurent, Benjamin & Philippe, I sent an updated version of the patch following your comments Big thank you, Philippe :-) On 02/08/2018 03:09 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > Benjamin, > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard > <benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2018-01-24 0:32 GMT+01:00 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> Hi Philippe, >>> >>> On Tuesday, 23 January 2018 12:25:51 EET Philippe CORNU wrote: >>>> On 01/23/2018 12:30 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>>>> On Monday, 22 January 2018 12:26:08 EET Philippe Cornu wrote: >>>>>> Add SPDX identifiers to the Synopsys DesignWare MIPI DSI >>>>>> host controller driver. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Cornu <philippe.cornu@xxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c | 6 +----- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c >>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c index >>>>>> 46b0e73404d1..e06836dec77c 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c >>>>>> @@ -1,12 +1,8 @@ >>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >>>>> >>>>> According to Documentation/process/license-rules.txt this would change >>>>> the existing license. The correct identifier is GPL-2.0+. >>>> >>>> You are right, I did not put the correct identifier :( >>>> >>>> After reading more spdx.org, I wonder if the correct value should be >>>> GPL-2.0-or-later instead of GPL-2.0+ >>>> >>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html >>>> https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0+.html >>>> >>>> What is your opinion? >>> >>> I agree in principle, and I've even asked for that before, but I've been told >>> that we should stick to the license identifiers defined in Documentation/ >>> process/license-rules.txt. The file might get updated to use GPL-2.0-or-later >>> and GPL-2.0-only later, and kernel sources will likely then get patched in one >>> go. >> >> + Philippe O. to check what I'm writing just below. >> >> In -next branch I only see reference to GPL-2.0+ identifier so for me >> it fine to use it here. >> Is that right ? or should we use GPL-2.0-or-later keyword ? > > > Sorry for the late reply! > IMHO it is essential to stick to what is in the kernel doc, meaning > that you should not use the GPL-2.0-or-later identifier until it is > part of the kernel doc. Otherwise this is going to be a mess ;) > Consistency matters a lot. > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
