From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752058AbeBHPFl (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:05:41 -0500 Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com ([62.209.51.94]:13513 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750929AbeBHPFj (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:05:39 -0500 From: Philippe CORNU To: Philippe Ombredanne , Benjamin Gaignard CC: Laurent Pinchart , Archit Taneja , Andrzej Hajda , David Airlie , Brian Norris , Bhumika Goyal , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Sandy Huang , "Heiko Stubner" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org" , Yannick FERTRE , Vincent ABRIOU , Alexandre TORGUE , Maxime Coquelin , Ludovic BARRE , Mickael REULIER Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers Thread-Topic: [PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers Thread-Index: AQHTk9kKuHanPDlyuEWBuDIkKLGSi6OBMJ4AgADbsQCAGJj6gf///qOA Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:05:03 +0000 Message-ID: <58c9435f-a0ca-d59f-c316-ea13f442b539@st.com> References: <20180122102608.12565-1-philippe.cornu@st.com> <3169703.7pajs7FEnH@avalon> <2bf185e2-9b02-3632-dc9a-baf8f4109b44@st.com> <2205915.z0ubSpqczI@avalon> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.75.127.47] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2018-02-08_08:,, signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id w18F5jux007002 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 > wrote: >> 2018-01-24 0:32 GMT+01:00 Laurent Pinchart : >>> 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 >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >