From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D096AC3A589 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10CB20644 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:04:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565877848; bh=MIPucA8nlaeUB0gX1iRzjKyYa/bVxtRZHYmUpn/icYU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=xdxDcRsWuqfCsWR7PDaZididZpE1RhfRaw0cYLiJ8y7IDyYfpANqrajgA6ERAB7af MIeRC5BZAUR3mRaXu4hxPQuZxAyJ1ZbL4VwVLQUqew1rLXR5Q/eJ+vZ3s4oPChyzQA 2dU3cHS5ZIv5BzqVE9Oh6Guv3vGcWX2vB1a4JrYs= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732714AbfHOOEE (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:04:04 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:48112 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732705AbfHOOED (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:04:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D31720644; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:04:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565877843; bh=MIPucA8nlaeUB0gX1iRzjKyYa/bVxtRZHYmUpn/icYU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KBJbzT98lJdPARaPU38GixwII164snNT2WYHBu4XVIXpmEdEfq+P1WZZvxzWZs193 OvmX0xjRRBV2zIUPLjWQAZAvQqnwEUmE9oJpcIY91mnI4Cl4IXk5UO2ugysErxjjLX vKaSjOA2qaWKLfb+Ed0yLok/T2iukEID/1Bntyb4= Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:04:00 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Fabrizio Castro , Andrzej Hajda , David Airlie , Daniel Vetter , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Sean Paul , Eric Anholt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Simon Horman , Geert Uytterhoeven , Chris Paterson , Biju Das , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Kieran Bingham , Jacopo Mondi Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] drm: Rename drm_bridge_timings to drm_timings Message-ID: <20190815140400.GA7174@kroah.com> References: <1565867073-24746-1-git-send-email-fabrizio.castro@bp.renesas.com> <1565867073-24746-4-git-send-email-fabrizio.castro@bp.renesas.com> <20190815131838.GP5011@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190815131838.GP5011@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:18:38PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Fabrizio, > > (CC'ing Greg as the architect of the SPDX move) _one of_, not the one that did the most of he work, that would be Thomas :) > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:04:27PM +0100, Fabrizio Castro wrote: > > The information represented by drm_bridge_timings is also > > needed by panels, therefore rename drm_bridge_timings to > > drm_timings. > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabrizio Castro > > Link: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg43271.html > > > > --- > > v1->v2: > > * new patch > > > > I have copied the license from include/drm/drm_bridge.h as that's > > where the struct originally came from. What's the right SPDX license > > to use in this case? > > https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files > > Greg, any idea on how we should handle this ? Ugh, what lunacy. But drm_bridge.h is NOT under any "public domain" license, so why is that an issue here? This looks like a "normal" bsd 3 clause license to me, right? So I would just use "BSD-3-Clause" as the SPDX license here, if I were doing this patch... thanks, greg k-h