lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-06 11:44    [W:0.038 / U:2.488 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site