Re: [PATCH v1 04/17] xen/riscv: introduce device-agnostic MMIO emulation dispatch

[Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com>]

On 8/11/26 10:17 AM, Baptiste Le Duc wrote:
> On 2026-08-10 17:36:56+02:00, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>> On 8/10/26 4:49 PM, Baptiste Le Duc wrote:
>>
>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/mmio.h b/xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/mmio.h
>>>
>>> According to coding style, it should be GPL-2.0-only.
>>
>> Could you please point me to the line in the coding style document where
>> this is mentioned?
>>
>> If you are referring to:
>>     New files should start with a single-line SPDX comment to express the
>>     license, e.g.:
>>
>>     /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
>>
>>     See LICENSES/ for a list of licenses and SPDX tags currently used.
>>
>> Then my understanding is that /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> */ is used only as an example, and I can choose any license from
>> LICENSES/. There, it is mentioned:
>>     Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.0-only
>>     Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.0-or-later
>>
>> I am pretty sure that I am free to choose any license that does not
>> conflict with the other licenses used in the project.
>>
> Oh ok I didn't know, thanks for these explanations. Could you let me
> know how do you choose one instead of the other in that case? Is there a
> rule from our company to follow somewhere?

I don't know about any specific rule from our company.

In different situations different licenses could/should be used. 
Specifically here I used GPL-2.0-or-later as this code partially is 
based on Arm code which uses this license so I just re-use it.

>>>> +#ifndef RISCV_MMIO_H
>>>
>>> Nit: line too long (85)
>>
>> I will apply that. Actually I've already fixed that by putting the
>> comment above:
>>     /* store: value to write; load: value read (set by handler) */
>>     register_t data;
>>
>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/mmio.c b/xen/arch/riscv/mmio.c
>>> Should be GPL-2.0-only.
>>
>> Regarding license I've wrote a comment above so lets continue discussion
>> there.
>>
>>>> +/*
>>> Why have you included a copyright notice here, but not in the other
>>> files?
>>
>> So I just decided to do that for new files as I am not using corporate
>> e-mail.
> But why didn't you do it for all new files of this series?
If there are such cases then I just missed to add it. I will double 
check during preparation of v2.

~ Oleksii