On 12/01/2017 12:41 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
David,
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/01/2017 11:49 AM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
David, Greg,
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:42 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 11/30/2017 11:53 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
[...]
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/resource-mgr.c
@@ -0,0 +1,371 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * Resource manager for Octeon.
+ *
+ * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU
General
Public
+ * License. See the file "COPYING" in the main directory of this
archive
+ * for more details.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2017 Cavium, Inc.
+ */
Since you nicely included an SPDX id, you would not need the
boilerplate anymore. e.g. these can go alright?
They may not be strictly speaking necessary, but I don't think they hurt
anything. Unless there is a requirement to strip out the license text,
we
would stick with it as is.
I think the requirement is there and that would be much better for
everyone: keeping both is redundant and does not bring any value, does
it? Instead it kinda removes the benefits of having the SPDX id in the
first place IMHO.
Furthermore, as there have been already ~12K+ files cleaned up and
still over 60K files to go, it would really nice if new files could
adopt the new style: this way we will not have to revisit and repatch
them in the future.
I am happy to follow any style Greg would suggest. There doesn't seem to be
much documentation about how this should be done yet.
Thomas (tglx) has already submitted a first series of doc patches a
few weeks ago. And AFAIK he might be working on posting the updates
soon, whenever his real time clock yields a few cycles away from real
time coding work ;)
See also these discussions with Linus [1][2][3], Thomas[4] and Greg[5]
on this and mostly related topics
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/715
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/125
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/133
[4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/805
[5] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/19/165
OK, you convinced me.
Thanks,
David
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
