From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:58:28 -0500 From: Scott Wood To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc: add support for MPIC message register API Message-ID: <20110617115828.3cebd5c9@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> In-Reply-To: <1308288784.32158.30.camel@pasglop> References: <1306869543-18812-1-git-send-email-meador_inge@mentor.com> <1306869543-18812-3-git-send-email-meador_inge@mentor.com> <1308288784.32158.30.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Cc: Meador Inge , openmcapi-dev@googlegroups.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Hollis Blanchard , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:33:04 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 14:19 -0500, Meador Inge wrote: > > +void mpic_msgr_enable(struct mpic_msgr *msgr) > > +{ > > + out_be32(msgr->mer, in_be32(msgr->mer) | (1 << msgr->num)); > > +} > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(mpic_msgr_enable); >=20 > Why are all those exported non-GPL ? We have a policy of making new > in-kernel APIs generally GPL only. =46rom Documentation/DocBook/kernel-hacking.tmpl: <function>EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()</function> =20 <filename class=3D"headerfile">include/linux/module.h</filename> =20 =20 Similar to EXPORT_SYMBOL() except that the symbols exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() can only be seen by modules with a =20 MODULE_LICENSE() that specifies a GPL compatible license. It implies that the function is considered an internal implementation issue, and not really an interface. =20 When did this change from "considered an internal implementation issue, and not really an interface" to "all new interfaces"? -Scott