On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Łukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It was <2017-12-22 pią 14:34>, when Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
>> Łukasz,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Łukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Add support for True Random Number Generator found in Samsung Exynos
>>> 5250+ SoCs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Łukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/exynos-trng.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,245 @@
>>> +/*
>>> + * RNG driver for Exynos TRNGs
>>> + *
>>> + * Author: Łukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> + *
>>> + * Copyright 2017 (c) Samsung Electronics Software, Inc.
>>> + *
>>> + * Based on the Exynos PRNG driver drivers/crypto/exynos-rng by
>>> + * Krzysztof Kozłowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> + *
>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>> + * the Free Software Foundation;
>>> + *
>>> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>>> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
>>> + */
>>
>>
>> Would you mind using the new SPDX tags documented in Thomas patch set
>> [1] rather than this fine but longer legalese?
>>
>> And if you could spread the word to others in your team this would be very nice.
>> See also this fine article posted by Mauro on the Samsung Open Source
>> Group Blog [2]
>> Thank you!
>
> Cool! We've been using SPDX to tag RPM packages in Tizen for three years or
> more. ;-)
Very nice! any pubic pointers?
>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>
>> Per module.h this means GPL2 or later. This is not matching your
>> license above which does not state any version and therefore would
>> mean GPL1 or later,
>
> Thanks for spotting. My intention is GPL-2.0.
>
>> Please make sure you use something and common rather than this and
>> make sure your MODULE_LICENSE is consistent with the top level
>> license.
>>
>> Was it this way in the code from Krzysztof?
>
> Yes. And omap-rng, the second of my sources of reference, too. Actually,
> the majority of modules still specify "GPL".
>
> 281 | "Dual */*"
> 2082 | "GPL v2"
> 6359 | "GPL"
> ---- +---------
> 8784 | Total
>
> Fixing.
Sigh. That's a lot! Now I have the tool to spot all these differences.
I need to run this and review.
As a first pass aligning the MODULE_LICENSE with the top level would
be something that requires minimal discussion I guess.
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/934
>> [2] https://blogs.s-osg.org/linux-kernel-license-practices-revisited-spdx/
>
> --
> Łukasz Stelmach
> Samsung R&D Institute Poland
> Samsung Electronics
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
