[PATCH] drivers: power: supply: goldfish_battery: Fix bogus SPDX identifier

[PATCH] drivers: power: supply: goldfish_battery: Fix bogus SPDX identifier

[Thomas Gleixner]

spdxcheck.py complains:

 drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: GPL

which is correct because GPL is not a valid identifier. Of course this
could have been caught by checkpatch.pl _before_ submitting or merging the
patch.

 WARNING: 'SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL' is not supported in LICENSES/...
 #19: FILE: drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c:1:
 +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL

Which is absolutely hillarious as the commit introducing this wreckage says
in the changelog:

  There was a checkpatch complain:
    
    "Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag".

Oh well. Replacing a checkpatch warning by a different checkpatch warning
is a really useful exercise.

Use the proper GPL-2.0 identifier which is what the boiler plate in the
file had originally.

Fixes: e75e3a125b40 ("drivers: power: supply: goldfish_battery: Put an SPDX tag")
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
---
diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
index ad969d9fc981..c2644a9fe80f 100644
--- a/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
+++ b/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 /*
  * Power supply driver for the goldfish emulator
  *

Re: [PATCH] drivers: power: supply: goldfish_battery: Fix bogus SPDX identifier

[Roman Kiryanov]

Hi, I am sorry for this warning. I remember I checked all changes I
sent, maybe missed this one.

At the bottom the file says

MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");

and

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

makes it inconsistent.

Regards,
Roman.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:51 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> spdxcheck.py complains:
>
>  drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: GPL
>
> which is correct because GPL is not a valid identifier. Of course this
> could have been caught by checkpatch.pl _before_ submitting or merging the
> patch.
>
>  WARNING: 'SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL' is not supported in LICENSES/...
>  #19: FILE: drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c:1:
>  +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL
>
> Which is absolutely hillarious as the commit introducing this wreckage says
> in the changelog:
>
>   There was a checkpatch complain:
>
>     "Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag".
>
> Oh well. Replacing a checkpatch warning by a different checkpatch warning
> is a really useful exercise.
>
> Use the proper GPL-2.0 identifier which is what the boiler plate in the
> file had originally.
>
> Fixes: e75e3a125b40 ("drivers: power: supply: goldfish_battery: Put an SPDX tag")
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
> index ad969d9fc981..c2644a9fe80f 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/goldfish_battery.c
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>  /*
>   * Power supply driver for the goldfish emulator
>   *

Re: [PATCH] drivers: power: supply: goldfish_battery: Fix bogus SPDX identifier

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:14:32AM -0700, Roman Kiryanov wrote:
> Hi, I am sorry for this warning. I remember I checked all changes I
> sent, maybe missed this one.
> 
> At the bottom the file says
> 
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> 
> and
> 
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> 
> makes it inconsistent.

No, please read include/linux/module.h in 5.1-rc1, that nightmare is now fixed up.

Also, you were inconsistent from the beginning with the text at the top
of the file, so that was your issue to start with :)

Also, please do not top post.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] drivers: power: supply: goldfish_battery: Fix bogus SPDX identifier

[Thomas Gleixner]

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Roman Kiryanov wrote:
> Hi, I am sorry for this warning. I remember I checked all changes I
> sent, maybe missed this one.
> 
> At the bottom the file says
> 
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> 
> and
> 
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> 
> makes it inconsistent.

No. It does not.

 1) The module license is not a precise license indicator.

 2) SPDX License identifiers are well defined and standardized. 'GPL' is
    NOT a valid SPDX identifier.

The usage of SPDX identifiers and the relevance of the MODULE_LICENSE()
string are well documented in:

    Documentation/process/license-rules.rst

or for your conveniance at:

    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html

Thanks,

	tglx