Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:43:33 +0200 | From | Thierry Reding <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] pwm: cros-ec: Switch to SPDX identifier. |
| |
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 11:21:01AM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > On 06/06/18 11:08, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 07:54:27PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: > >> Adopt the SPDX license identifier headers to ease license compliance > >> management. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com> > >> --- > >> > >> Changes in v2: None > >> > >> drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c | 13 ++++--------- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c > >> index 9c13694eaa24..9bf4cde86765 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c > >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c > >> @@ -1,12 +1,7 @@ > >> -/* > >> - * Copyright (C) 2016 Google, Inc > >> - * > >> - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it > >> - * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2, as published by > >> - * the Free Software Foundation. > >> - * > >> - * Expose a PWM controlled by the ChromeOS EC to the host processor. > >> - */ > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > >> +// Expose a PWM controlled by the ChromeOS EC to the host processor. > >> +// > >> +// Copyright (C) 2016 Google, Inc. > > > > This is odd. I understand that for some reason there is an exception for > > SPDX license identifies to use C++ style comments, but why would you > > make the whole comment C++ style? Why not just something like the below: > > > > Seems that there is some kind of controversy between different maintainers. I > did in that way because I was complained to use the c-style on other patches, > and seems, that putting everything as // is Linus Torvalds' preferred style: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/133 > > I don't mind to change if the c-style is preferred by the maintainer (others > prefer the c++ style) but I think that would be good get an agreement between > subsystems maintainers and document properly.
I've read elsewhere that using // for SPDX was supposed to make it stand out, which is kind of contradicted by the above. However, I interpret Linus' reply to Mauro as "people tend to do less crazy things with // than with /* */", so to me it seems that as long you use /* */ sensibly, there's no reason to avoid it.
No need to resend, though, I can adjust the patch to my own preference if I decide to do so.
Thierry [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |