Re: [PATCH v14 1/2] drm: add kms driver for loongson display controller

[WANG Xuerui]

On 2023/5/22 16:14, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023/5/21 20:21, WANG Xuerui wrote:
> > > +
> > > +      If in doubt, say "N".
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/loongson/Makefile 
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/loongson/Makefile
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..9158816ece8e
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/loongson/Makefile
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +
> > > +loongson-y := \
> > > +    lsdc_benchmark.o \
> > > +    lsdc_crtc.o \
> > > +    lsdc_debugfs.o \
> > > +    lsdc_device.o \
> > > +    lsdc_drv.o \
> > > +    lsdc_gem.o \
> > > +    lsdc_gfxpll.o \
> > > +    lsdc_i2c.o \
> > > +    lsdc_irq.o \
> > > +    lsdc_output_7a1000.o \
> > > +    lsdc_output_7a2000.o \
> > > +    lsdc_plane.o \
> > > +    lsdc_pixpll.o \
> > > +    lsdc_probe.o \
> > > +    lsdc_ttm.o
> > > +
> > > +obj-$(CONFIG_DRM_LOONGSON) += loongson.o
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/loongson/lsdc_benchmark.c 
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/loongson/lsdc_benchmark.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..82961531d84c
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/loongson/lsdc_benchmark.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> >
> > Is it GPL-2.0, GPL-2.0-only, or GPL-2.0+? Please make sure all license 
> > IDs are consistent. 
>
>
> I see drm/vkms is also writing the copyrights similar.
>
> with "# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only" in the Makefile,
>
> while "// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+" in the C source file.
>
> Sorry, I'm stupid, I can't figure out the difference between them.
>
> Personally, I really don't care about this as along as checkpatch.pl 
> don't complain.
>
> I respect the maintainers of DRM, they didn't told me to change it.
>
> I assume there is no problem.

It's your work after all, so you get to license the work however you 
want (inside the kernel project's licensing requirements, of course), so 
maintainers won't interfere with that.

I'm suggesting the license double-check because the whole driver is one 
piece of work, so it's better to be extra clear (you DO want to make 
sure things are clear when it comes to copyright, compliance & etc.) and 
make it as consistent as possible, but ultimately it's of course down to 
you. I think you may keep things as-is if others don't voice their 
concerns in the coming days.

--
WANG "xen0n" Xuerui

Linux/LoongArch mailing list: https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/