From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ACPI: EC: Add ec_get_handle() Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 21:26:14 +0000 Message-ID: <20120107212614.GA24097@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1325617358-8286-1-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com> <1325617358-8286-2-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com> <20120105193436.GC25386@ubuntu-macmini> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:56291 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750762Ab2AGV0W (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jan 2012 16:26:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Thomas Renninger , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Azael Avalos , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 03:55:35PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > My understanding (and this is from reading Greg KH's patches) is that > any new interface should use _GPL variant unless there is an absolute > need for it. Say, a binary driver that uses this function and there is > no other way around it. A binary driver could implement the same functionality using exported interfaces from the ACPI core, so I don't see any benefit in insisting on _GPL here. _GPL is intended to be a hint that use of the interface is definitely an indication that you're creating a derived work. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org