Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2022/01/04 19:21, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> On 1/4/2022 8:26 AM, Hector Martin wrote: >>> On DT platforms, the module-instance and antenna-sku-info properties >>> are passed in the DT. On ACPI platforms, module-instance is passed via >>> the analogous Apple device property mechanism, while the antenna SKU >>> info is instead obtained via an ACPI method that grabs it from >>> non-volatile storage. >>> >>> Add support for this, to allow proper firmware selection on Apple >>> platforms. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/Makefile | 2 + >>> .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/acpi.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.c | 1 + >>> .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/common.h | 9 ++++ >>> 4 files changed, 59 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/acpi.c >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/Makefile b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/Makefile >>> index 13c13504a6e8..19009eb9db93 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/Makefile >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/Makefile >>> @@ -47,3 +47,5 @@ brcmfmac-$(CONFIG_OF) += \ >>> of.o >>> brcmfmac-$(CONFIG_DMI) += \ >>> dmi.o >>> +brcmfmac-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += \ >>> + acpi.o >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/acpi.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/acpi.c >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..2b1a4448b291 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/acpi.c >>> @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ >>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC >>> +/* >>> + * Copyright The Asahi Linux Contributors >>> + */ >> >> Common format for copyright statement (in this folder) seems to be: >> >> Copyright (c) <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT_HOLDER> >> >> Regards, >> Arend > > I get this every time I submit a patch to a new subsystem :-) > > This is based on this best practice: > > https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/copyright-notices-in-open-source-software-projects/ I didn't know about this recommendation, thanks. > Basically, the year format quickly becomes outdated and is rather > useless, and listing specific names also ends up missing every > subsequent contributor, so more general copyright statements work better > for this kind of use case. In the end we all know git history is the > proper record of copyright status. > > I don't have a super strong opinion here, but we've been trying to > standardize on this format for contributions coming from our subproject, > and it feels more useful than a random contributor's name with a date 5 > years in the past :) If LF is fine with this approach, then it's good enough also for me. So at least from my point of view no need to make any changes. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
