From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: smtp.codeaurora.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="lMvlQ+oB" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 19CCD60555 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932612AbeFFJni (ORCPT + 25 others); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 05:43:38 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:40497 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932415AbeFFJnh (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 05:43:37 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKF3Euwb2YtsE5TSB2OidN2MPsqdTe1Ecc4Zi9HSsuc78q6F+5dAXn8UrseZt0PaF54CmE34g== Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:43:33 +0200 From: Thierry Reding To: Enric Balletbo i Serra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gwendal Grignou , kernel@collabora.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] pwm: cros-ec: Switch to SPDX identifier. Message-ID: <20180606094333.GH11810@ulmo> References: <20180605175429.9072-1-enric.balletbo@collabora.com> <20180605175429.9072-7-enric.balletbo@collabora.com> <20180606090848.GF11810@ulmo> <32b22e93-d8d3-d20a-f497-723c62d1bd2b@collabora.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9sSKoi6Rw660DLir" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32b22e93-d8d3-d20a-f497-723c62d1bd2b@collabora.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 11:21:01AM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: > Hi Thierry, >=20 > On 06/06/18 11:08, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 07:54:27PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: > >> Adopt the SPDX license identifier headers to ease license compliance > >> management. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra > >> --- > >> > >> Changes in v2: None > >> > >> drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c | 13 ++++--------- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c > >> index 9c13694eaa24..9bf4cde86765 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c > >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c > >> @@ -1,12 +1,7 @@ > >> -/* > >> - * Copyright (C) 2016 Google, Inc > >> - * > >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modi= fy it > >> - * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2, as pu= blished by > >> - * the Free Software Foundation. > >> - * > >> - * Expose a PWM controlled by the ChromeOS EC to the host processor. > >> - */ > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > >> +// Expose a PWM controlled by the ChromeOS EC to the host processor. > >> +// > >> +// Copyright (C) 2016 Google, Inc. > >=20 > > This is odd. I understand that for some reason there is an exception for > > SPDX license identifies to use C++ style comments, but why would you > > make the whole comment C++ style? Why not just something like the below: > >=20 >=20 > Seems that there is some kind of controversy between different maintainer= s. I > did in that way because I was complained to use the c-style on other patc= hes, > and seems, that putting everything as // is Linus Torvalds' preferred sty= le: >=20 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/133 >=20 > I don't mind to change if the c-style is preferred by the maintainer (oth= ers > prefer the c++ style) but I think that would be good get an agreement bet= ween > subsystems maintainers and document properly. I've read elsewhere that using // for SPDX was supposed to make it stand out, which is kind of contradicted by the above. However, I interpret Linus' reply to Mauro as "people tend to do less crazy things with // than with /* */", so to me it seems that as long you use /* */ sensibly, there's no reason to avoid it. No need to resend, though, I can adjust the patch to my own preference if I decide to do so. Thierry --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEiOrDCAFJzPfAjcif3SOs138+s6EFAlsXrMMACgkQ3SOs138+ s6FYcQ/+PJWrm3mSUjMrnZ5Rj3zgZR2kxykZ04vwdb0nM+o9KwqXSa6tbxInWiLw mjY0K5yoBZ52UGdHnG0AkCwYR3QGYBaVlV1cReAUDqWQ0ga1QEBK697h972nTWyM h5+Jc20i0NiJd1kN3D4liy9RJJJl1MxL6PaGsVPow+eid0N6CqeeCeUZplfvkxkp ySjJpO+YfnemF6orK4o5HKKzxsToyXmYIVTtQgVSgO2IHHXaEKcTKmoNfgXPAKEK vUGR9W2WZpBaGFUx2bhmDufMMpRYAlKTeBfwH7wGAfaT2cnXfZKaTvj4phlToHCX TLp/Gms97D5hoK+zVGk11LpLfK3k0s3Aa7uT6uz6FLRK0sTV5vqtTXl98roTEh/G CiU2hGOoBegUSvhXGy2kU9k7rJKXMSG+iJu+VIuZaP0W1jnjtxbtWMjyDklbgGjV 4lMUY7m0ezJddiA/8alRHu7ZKYkjSJXUh/FteOJSz+D2gmXVpgH5ou66ZOVf8n2X lFAYI5yu253GLmIbJaKLElyugQWha8sWtEvlSiHxbflbiEkq4IXOinbP/JX0HOkv gNfGnE86tAqUdoaI0enKIfmVkmGMeldP4ZtYTgqv/dXyWrrFKhE2yQuw2KDDfheZ uwZlzzYlpykj9/XB8nqNP63w/wj6+xMgOdh9BPPmLxAAr85Jchc= =uQ6D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir--