[PATCH v6 1/2] dt-bindings: edac: al-mc-edac: Amazon's Annapurna Labs Memory Controller EDAC

[Shenhar, Talel]

Rob and other DT folks,

Can you please help with below query?


On 4/28/2020 2:06 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Talel Shenhar wrote:
> > Document Amazon's Annapurna Labs Memory Controller EDAC SoC binding.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Talel Shenhar <talel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   .../bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml      | 52 +++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
> >   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..20505f37c9f8
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml
> > @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> WARNING: DT binding documents should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> #36: FILE: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/edac/amazon,al-mc-edac.yaml:1:
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>
> Hi Rob, should I listen to checkpatch or ignore it?

Rob and other dt folks,

In continue to disscussion with Boris below, Looking at the checkpatch 
check:

   if ($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ &&
       not $spdx_license =~/GPL-2\.0.*BSD-2-Clause/) {

It wants the whole string "GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause" and my oatch has only "GPL-2.0-only".

Now, looking at a bunch of .yaml DT files, there are all kinds of formatting:

$ git grep -h SPDX *.yaml | sort | uniq -c
      3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0)
    313 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
      9 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
      1 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only)
     43 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
      4 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause)
      1 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause
    148 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
     25 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
    104 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
      3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
      2 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR BSD-2-Clause)
      1 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later)
      5 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
      3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
      2 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause
      3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
      3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
      3 1:# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11)

And the patch which did rule is:

commit 50c92900214dd9a55bcecc3c53e90d072aff6560
Author: Lubomir Rintel<lkundrak@xxxxx>
Date:   Mon Apr 6 20:11:13 2020 -0700

    checkpatch: check proper licensing of Devicetree bindings

    According to Devicetree maintainers (see Link: below), the Devicetree
    binding documents are preferrably licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause).

    Let's check that.  The actual check is a bit more relaxed, to allow more
    liberal but compatible licensing (e.g.  GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause).


Will love your help.
This patch already have your (Rob) Reviewed-by so Boris and myself are unsure what is the right thing to do now.

Thanks,
Talel.

> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>      Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette