Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 01/12] i2c: Split smbus into parts

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>]

On 20/11/18 16:47, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 16 November 2018 at 13:20, Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> wrote:
>> On 11/15/18 4:22 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/include/hw/i2c/smbus_eeprom.h
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>>>
>>>
>>> You missed the copyright notice here.
>>
>>
>> Other files don't have copyright notices (i2c.h, for instance), and for
>> the smbus.[ch] case the copyrights are kind of mixed up, the include
>> files had the big header with a copyright by one company and the C
>> file had a different copyright notice by a different company.
>>
>> Not a huge deal, but I didn't include it in that file because I didn't
>> think it was necessary.  I'm wondering if it would be best to
>> establish a style like Linux has, with the // SPDX... thing on the
>> first line.
> 
> Yeah, we have some legacy files with no copyright notice, but we
> usually try to avoid that for new files. New files should have
> a copyright notice and a license statement. (If you copied from
> a file without a license statement, LICENSE says that means
> 2-or-later.)
> 
> We don't yet use SPDX headers. (They're just a different and
> shorter way to write the license statement.)

Does that mean we can use them, or you rather prefer we don't?

While they are machine parseable, I find them easier to understand than 
the big chunk of legal text that sometime are not correctly written.

Thanks,

Phil.