Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] RISC-V: Move the hwprobe syscall to its own file

Andrew Jones
2023-10-13T06:45:57Z

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 06:02:38PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 09:42:39AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:11 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 02:45:14PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 03:56:13PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,276 @@
> > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * The hwprobe interface, for allowing userspace to probe to see which features
> > > > > + * are supported by the hardware. See Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst for more
> > > > > + * details.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2012 Regents of the University of California
> > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2014 Darius Rad <darius@bluespec.com>
> > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2017 SiFive
> > > >
> > > > So uh, this is all new(ish) code, originally written last September,
> > > > that is being moved, right?
> > >
> > > Yeah, I just pulled the Copyrights over by standard practice of code
> > > movement, but I agree they don't make much sense for the code I moved.
> > > I suck at copyright management and would be happy for suggestions here.
> > > If Rivos would like to put one here for the work Evan did, then I'll be
> > > happy to add it. Or, if people prefer, I could add a Ventana copyright.
> >
> > I probably would have stuck a Rivos banner on it if I had written it
> > as a new file myself, as I think they "own" the work I do. But it all feels
> > a bit like vanity license plates given it's GPL, so I imagine whatever
> > you do will get no real complaints.
>
> Aye, that's how I see it too. I've not bothered adding that stuff where
> I could help it. The git history shows who made copyrightable changes to
> the file anyway, but obv. I am no lawyer.
> Just in this case, since as far as I could tell this code was written
> from LPC onwards, it made little sense to copy over some 2012 era
> copyright information.
>

So what's the final plan? I feel a bit strange adding a Rivos copyright
while copying the Rivos code over since I don't consider myself
"authorized" to do so. I also don't want to add a Ventana one for just
code movement. Do we need a copyright on this file at all? Should I move
it without anything and then add a Ventana copyright when adding the
which-cpus stuff?

Thanks,
drew