Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: edac: al-mc-edac: Amazon's Annapurna Labs Memory Controller EDAC

["Shenhar, Talel" <talel@amazon.com>]

On 5/5/2020 1:44 PM, Shenhar, Talel wrote:
>
> On 4/28/2020 2:06 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Talel Shenhar wrote:
>>> Document Amazon's Annapurna Labs Memory Controller EDAC SoC binding.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Talel Shenhar <talel@amazon.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>   .../bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml      | 52 
>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
>>>   create mode 100644 
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml
>>>
>>> diff --git 
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml 
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..20505f37c9f8
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> WARNING: DT binding documents should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR 
>> BSD-2-Clause)
>> #36: FILE: 
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml:1:
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>
>> Hi Rob, should I listen to checkpatch or ignore it?
>
> Rob and other dt folks,
>
> In continue to disscussion with Boris below, Looking at the checkpatch 
> check:
>
>    if ($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ &&
>        not $spdx_license =~/GPL-2\.0.*BSD-2-Clause/) {
>
> It wants the whole string "GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause" and my oatch 
> has only "GPL-2.0-only".
>
> Now, looking at a bunch of .yaml DT files, there are all kinds of 
> formatting:
>
> $ git grep -h SPDX *.yaml | sort | uniq -c
>       3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0)
>     313 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>       9 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>       1 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only)
>      43 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>       4 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause)
>       1 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause
>     148 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>      25 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
>     104 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
>       3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
>       2 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause)
>       1 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later)
>       5 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>       3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
>       2 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause
>       3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
>       3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
>       3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11)
>
> And the patch which did rule is:
>
> commit 50c92900214dd9a55bcecc3c53e90d072aff6560
> Author: Lubomir Rintel<lkundrak@v3.sk>
> Date:   Mon Apr 6 20:11:13 2020 -0700
>
>     checkpatch: check proper licensing of Devicetree bindings
>
>     According to Devicetree maintainers (see Link: below), the Devicetree
>     binding documents are preferrably licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR 
> BSD-2-Clause).
>
>     Let's check that.  The actual check is a bit more relaxed, to 
> allow more
>     liberal but compatible licensing (e.g.  GPL-2.0-or-later OR 
> BSD-2-Clause).
>
>
> Will love your help.
> This patch already have your (Rob) Reviewed-by so Boris and myself are 
> unsure what is the right thing to do now.

Borislav, after internal disscussion, we are good to go with the new 
license.

This shall be part of v7.

>
> Thanks,
> Talel.
>
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards/Gruss,
>>      Boris.
>>
>> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette