Re: [PATCH] DFU Driver and firmware for Atheros bluetooth chipset AR3011

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 06:59:00AM -0800, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Atheros Communications");
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Atheros AR3011 firmware driver");
> > +MODULE_VERSION(DRV_VERSION);
> > +MODULE_SUPPORTED_DEVICE("Atheros AR3011 chipset");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > +MODULE_FIRMWARE("atherosbt.bin");
> 
> The
> module author needs to have a contact information and not just the
> company name. Read it as who maintains this driver.

This is probably just following what we have on ath9k / ath9k_common / ath9k_hw / ath
modules which so far no one has asked us to change:

MODULE_AUTHOR("Atheros Communications");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Support for Atheros 802.11n wireless LAN cards.");
MODULE_SUPPORTED_DEVICE("Atheros 802.11n WLAN cards");
MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");

Using one contact point for ath9k stuff doesn't work for us as we have a group
and for that the MAINTAINERS file seems just suitable. Plus -- some module authors
are sometimes not the current maintainers so the MDOULE_AUTHOR really doesn't mean
much. Wouldn't updating the MAINTAINERS file accordingly be better?

Also Vikram -- why not just ISC license the files as we do with ath9k ? Then also
use:

MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");

This would be more consistant with what we do with our other upstream Atheros
modules.

  Luis