Re: [v6 08/10] platform/x86/amd/hsmp: Create mutually exclusive ACPI and plat drivers

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2334 bytes --]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024, Suma Hegde wrote:
> On 8/29/2024 3:55 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2024, Suma Hegde wrote:
> > 
> > > Separate the probes for HSMP ACPI and platform device drivers.
> > > 
> > > Provide a Kconfig option to choose between
> > > ACPI or the platform device based driver.
> > > The common code which is the core part of the HSMP driver
> > > maintained at hsmp.c is guarded by AMD_HSMP config and is selected by
> > > these two driver configs.
> > > 
> > > Also add "|| COMPILE_TEST" clause in Kconfig to get build coverage
> > > for HSMP.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Suma Hegde <suma.hegde@amd.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <naveenkrishna.chatradhi@amd.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes since v5:
> > > 1. Update documentation to reduce line length, update SPDK line and update
> > > the wordings.
> > > 2. Change module license from GPL v2 to GPL and update SPDX license line
> > > in plat.c and acpi.c.
> > Hi Suma,
> > 
> > Just to be sure you're not doing the SPDX license line change because of
> > what I said, the change in MODULE_LICENSE() from "GPL v2" -> "GPL" by no
> > means implies SPDX license has to be changed from "GPL-2.0" to
> > "GPL-2.0-or-later".
> > 
> > I'm sorry about the confusion I might have caused.
> > 
> > If I've understood correctly, MODULE_LICENSE()'s value is mainly used to
> > determine eg. which exports (if the _GPL EXPORTs can be used) can be
> > used and taint flags, and that does not require knowing exact GPL version
> > so it was simplified to "GPL" long time ago w/o requirement to change the
> > oldones (to avoid unnecessary churn).
> 
> I wanted to update the license to "GPL-2.0-or-later" instead of "GPL-2.0",
> that's the main reason I modified SPDX line.
> 
> But I missed to update the license for hsmp.h and hsmp.c files. I will send v7
> with this change and addressing other comments.
> 
> Kindly respond me if the SPDX license update has to be made as a separate
> patch.
> 
> Thank you.

I've never really come across patches that attempt change the license of a 
file (I haven't been around as a maintainer that long). The obvious 
problem here is that you're not the sole contributor to this code.

Hans, have you come across this kind of case before?

-- 
 i.