[PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers

[PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers

[Philippe Cornu]

Add SPDX identifiers to the Synopsys DesignWare MIPI DSI
host controller driver.

Signed-off-by: Philippe Cornu <philippe.cornu@st.com>
---
 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
 /*
  * Copyright (c) 2016, Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd
  * Copyright (C) STMicroelectronics SA 2017
  *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
- * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
- * (at your option) any later version.
- *
  * Modified by Philippe Cornu <philippe.cornu@st.com>
  * This generic Synopsys DesignWare MIPI DSI host driver is based on the
  * Rockchip version from rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi.c with phy & bridge APIs.
-- 
2.15.1

Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Philippe,

Thank you for the patch.

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 <philippe.cornu@st.com>
> ---
>  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+.

>  /*
>   * Copyright (c) 2016, Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd
>   * Copyright (C) STMicroelectronics SA 2017
>   *
> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> - * (at your option) any later version.
> - *
>   * Modified by Philippe Cornu <philippe.cornu@st.com>
>   * This generic Synopsys DesignWare MIPI DSI host driver is based on the
>   * Rockchip version from rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi.c with phy & bridge APIs.


-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers

[Philippe CORNU]

Hi Laurent,

A big *thank* for your review

On 01/23/2018 12:30 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
> 
> Thank you for the patch.
> 
> 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 <philippe.cornu@st.com>
>> ---
>>   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?

Many thanks,
Philippe :-)

>>   /*
>>    * Copyright (c) 2016, Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd
>>    * Copyright (C) STMicroelectronics SA 2017
>>    *
>> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>> - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>> - * (at your option) any later version.
>> - *
>>    * Modified by Philippe Cornu <philippe.cornu@st.com>
>>    * This generic Synopsys DesignWare MIPI DSI host driver is based on the
>>    * Rockchip version from rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi.c with phy & bridge APIs.
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers

[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 <philippe.cornu@st.com>
> >> ---
> >> 
> >>   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.

> >>  /*
> >>   * Copyright (c) 2016, Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd
> >>   * Copyright (C) STMicroelectronics SA 2017
> >>   *
> >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> >> - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> >> - * (at your option) any later version.
> >> - *
> >>   * Modified by Philippe Cornu <philippe.cornu@st.com>
> >>   * This generic Synopsys DesignWare MIPI DSI host driver is based on the
> >>   * Rockchip version from rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi.c with phy & bridge APIs.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers

[Benjamin Gaignard]

2018-01-24 0:32 GMT+01:00 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>:
> 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 <philippe.cornu@st.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >>   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 ?

Benjamin

>
>> >>  /*
>> >>   * Copyright (c) 2016, Fuzhou Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd
>> >>   * Copyright (C) STMicroelectronics SA 2017
>> >>   *
>> >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> >> - * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>> >> - * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>> >> - * (at your option) any later version.
>> >> - *
>> >>   * Modified by Philippe Cornu <philippe.cornu@st.com>
>> >>   * This generic Synopsys DesignWare MIPI DSI host driver is based on the
>> >>   * Rockchip version from rockchip/dw-mipi-dsi.c with phy & bridge APIs.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart

Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers

[Philippe Ombredanne]

Benjamin,

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Benjamin Gaignard
<benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org> wrote:
> 2018-01-24 0:32 GMT+01:00 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>:
>> 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 <philippe.cornu@st.com>
>>> >> ---
>>> >>
>>> >>   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.
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne

Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge/synopsys: dsi: Adopt SPDX identifiers

[Philippe CORNU]

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
> <benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org> wrote:
>> 2018-01-24 0:32 GMT+01:00 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>:
>>> 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 <philippe.cornu@st.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    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.
>