From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 28/33] tools/libxl: Check if fdt_{first, next}_subnode are present in libfdt Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:46:02 +0100 Message-ID: <551A970A.9090202@linaro.org> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YcvYt-00079B-N7 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:46:31 +0000 Received: by wgoe14 with SMTP id e14so17603741wgo.0 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 05:46:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1427801755.2115.90.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, Ian Jackson , stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, Wei Liu List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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. Regards, -- Julien Grall