On Fri, 2018-08-10 at 14:01 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On 08/10/2018 01:26 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Replace short statement in comment with proper SPDX license tag.
> >
> > Note, for i2c-desingware-slave.c the identifier is chosen
> > in accordance with MODULE_LICENSE() macro since it is visible to
> > user.
> > Another point to this choice is that the header seems to be
> > copy'n'paste
> > from the other file of this very driver.
> >
>
> ...
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> > index 8af4c978938e..e7f9305b2dd9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-slave.c
> > @@ -1,23 +1,10 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > /*
>
> ...
> > - * 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; either version 2 of the License,
> > or
> > - * (at your option) any later version.
> > - *
>
> I'm not an expert here but which one has the priority here: "either
> version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.",
> even
> if it was a copy-paste, or MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")? Just thinking
> can
> the identifier be "GPL-2.0-or-later" for this file?
Synopsys clarified this, that's why I asked Ack from them.
>
> Acked-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
