From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 28/33] tools/libxl: Check if fdt_{first, next}_subnode are present in libfdt Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:18:13 +0100 Message-ID: <1427807893.2115.125.camel@citrix.com> References: <1426793399-6283-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1426793399-6283-29-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org> <1427801755.2115.90.camel@citrix.com> <551A970A.9090202@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ycw4F-000448-KI for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:18:55 +0000 In-Reply-To: <551A970A.9090202@linaro.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Julien Grall Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, Ian Jackson , stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, Wei Liu List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 13:46 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Ian, > > On 31/03/15 12:35, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 19:29 +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > > > >> The functions fdt_{fisrt,next}_subnode may not be available because: > > > > "first" > > > >> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_fdt.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_fdt.c > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000..f88e9f1 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_fdt.c > > > > Since this is effectively shims for missing libfdt functionality how > > about libxl_libfdt_compat.c or some such? > > I will rename the file. > > > If wee wanted any fdt specific helpers as part of libxl itself then > > those would want to use the libxl_fdt.c name. > > > >> @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ > >> +/* > >> + * libfdt - Flat Device Tree manipulation > >> + * Copyright (C) 2006 David Gibson, IBM Corporation. > >> + * > >> + * libfdt is dual licensed: you can use it either under the terms of > >> + * the GPL, or the BSD license, at your option. > > > > Since this is libxl, which should be LGPL I think we must therefore be > > taking the BSD option. Perhaps we should make that clear? I'm not sure. > > After speaking with Ian J. I will: > - Drop the GPL license from the header as we use the BSD one > - Add the libxl header license > - Specify in the commit message why we chose the BSD license. One downside to dropping the GPL bit is that any fixes which we get to this code cannot then easily be upstreamed. TBH I think it would be find to include both the GPL and BSD and to include a comment that within the context of libxl we have chosen BSD and so the overall license of the work remains LGPL. Ian may disagree though. Ian.