Re: [PATCH 3/8] doc: test: Add docs and test for part_find

[Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>]

Am 16. Dezember 2024 01:29:04 MEZ schrieb Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>:
>Hi Tom,
>
>On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 10:09, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 09:16:57AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
>> > Hi Heinrich,
>> >
>> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 01:16, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 09.12.24 17:27, Simon Glass wrote:
>> > > > Add some documentation and a test for this new command.
>> > >
>> > > Shouldn't this be two patches?
>> >
>> > Often we put the new command, its docs and tests in the same commit,
>> > since the question I always ask when looking at a command is, where
>> > are the docs and tests!
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> > > > ---
>> > > >
>> > > >   doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > > >   doc/usage/index.rst         |   1 +
>> > > >   test/cmd/Makefile           |   1 +
>> > > >   test/cmd/part_find.c        |  42 +++++++++++++
>> > > >   4 files changed, 163 insertions(+)
>> > > >   create mode 100644 doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst
>> > > >   create mode 100644 test/cmd/part_find.c
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst
>> > > > new file mode 100644
>> > > > index 00000000000..fd5bd6578d5
>> > > > --- /dev/null
>> > > > +++ b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst
>> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
>> > > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+:
>> > >
>> > > This is not a valid SPDX identifier.
>> > > Cf. https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html
>> >
>> > I have seen this point made a few times, but I'm afraid I still don't
>> > fully understand it:
>> >
>> > The Licenses/README lists the licenses and GPL-2.0+ appears in there.
>> > In the source tree:
>> >
>> > $ git grep GPL-2.0+ |wc -l
>> > 13406
>> > $ git grep GPL-2.0-or-later |wc -l
>> > 1847
>> >
>> > I have to say I much prefer GPL-2.0+ as it is easier to remember.
>> >
>> > But if we are planning to change, could you update checkpatch to throw
>> > a warning?
>>
>> As I've said before too, GPL-2.0+ is deprecated by SPDX and
>> GPL-2.0-or-later is the correct tag. But we aren't, sadly, right now a
>> best practices example for SPDX anyhow and so it's not a deal breaker to
>> use the old tag, just something that should be avoided.
>
>OK, I will try to remember this.
>
>At minimum, if this is important, Licenses/README should be updated to
>drop the old license?
>
>Heinrich, please update checkpatch to warn about this.
>
>Regards,
>Simon

See
<https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20241215023732.68902-1-heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com/>