| Message ID | 20250211-gs101-acpm-v8-1-01d01f522da6@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | firmware: add Exynos ACPM protocol driver | expand |
On Tue Feb 11, 2025 at 9:52 AM CET, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > Add bindings for the Samsung Exynos ACPM mailbox protocol. > > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > --- > .../bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..982cb8d62011 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) Shouldn't this be ``(GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)`` ? AFAIK it's the recommended form since SPDX 3.0: https://spdx.dev/license-list-3-0-released/ Cheers, Diederik
On 2/11/25 10:36 AM, Diederik de Haas wrote: >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > Shouldn't this be ``(GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)`` ? > > AFAIK it's the recommended form since SPDX 3.0: > https://spdx.dev/license-list-3-0-released/ It should, it's a copy-paste error. Looking in the driver patch, I shall update include/linux/firmware/samsung/exynos-acpm-protocol.h to GPL-2.0-only as well. And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/ everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later]. I'm going to respin everything to fix the License mismatch in the set. Thanks! ta
Hi Tudor, On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 11:57 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/ > everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later]. No, please don't, see Documentation/process/license-rules.rst. Cheers, Andre'
On 11/02/2025 13:02, André Draszik wrote: > Hi Tudor, > > On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 11:57 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >> And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/ >> everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later]. > > No, please don't, see Documentation/process/license-rules.rst. For the rest of suggestions here I also recommend rereading docs. I don't get why we need to change "GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause", but maybe I miss some docs. Whatever SPDX recommends is irrelevant if kernel recommends for example something else, so be sure you make it aligned with actual kernel preference. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 2/11/25 12:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/02/2025 13:02, André Draszik wrote: >> Hi Tudor, >> >> On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 11:57 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >>> And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/ >>> everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later]. >> >> No, please don't, see Documentation/process/license-rules.rst. Indeed, thanks, Andre'! The tag shouldn't convey the detailed license information, as the only decision to be made is whether the module is free software or not. I'll keep MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > For the rest of suggestions here I also recommend rereading docs. I always a good suggestion :) > don't get why we need to change "GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause", but maybe I I reread the docs, LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 says that: ''' For 'GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 only' use: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 or SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only ``` the two are equivalent. The downstream driver uses "GPL-2.0-only". I think it'd be good that everything that I derived from it to have the same SPDX value, for consistency reasons. Thus I'll amend the license on the bindings file and on include/linux/firmware/samsung/exynos-acpm-protocol.h only. I'm not thrilled about a new version for such a small change, but I think it's worth it. Thanks, ta
On Tue Feb 11, 2025 at 1:05 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/02/2025 13:02, André Draszik wrote: >> On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 11:57 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >>> And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/ >>> everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later]. >> >> No, please don't, see Documentation/process/license-rules.rst. > For the rest of suggestions here I also recommend rereading docs. I > don't get why we need to change "GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause", but maybe I > miss some docs. Whatever SPDX recommends is irrelevant if kernel > recommends for example something else, so be sure you make it aligned > with actual kernel preference. Unfortunately, ``Documentation/process/license-rules.rst`` and ``LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0`` are not in 'sync', but I guess that's (potentially) a discussion for another ML. TL;DR: ``license-rules.rst`` says "GPL-2.0" while the license file allows both. References: 9376ff9ba298 ("LICENSES/GPL2.0: Add GPL-2.0-only/or-later as valid identifiers") https://lore.kernel.org/all/20180422220833.078058446@linutronix.de/ (which mentions specifying the SPDX version, but that didn't get implemented) *sigh*
On 11/02/2025 14:29, Diederik de Haas wrote: > On Tue Feb 11, 2025 at 1:05 PM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 11/02/2025 13:02, André Draszik wrote: >>> On Tue, 2025-02-11 at 11:57 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >>>> And then I shall s/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");/MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");/ >>>> everywhere as "GPL" indicates [GNU Public License v2 or later]. >>> >>> No, please don't, see Documentation/process/license-rules.rst. >> For the rest of suggestions here I also recommend rereading docs. I >> don't get why we need to change "GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause", but maybe I >> miss some docs. Whatever SPDX recommends is irrelevant if kernel >> recommends for example something else, so be sure you make it aligned >> with actual kernel preference. > > Unfortunately, ``Documentation/process/license-rules.rst`` and > ``LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0`` are not in 'sync', but I guess that's > (potentially) a discussion for another ML. > > TL;DR: ``license-rules.rst`` says "GPL-2.0" while the license file > allows both. What exactly is there not in sync? To me it shows the preferred GPL-2.0, over GPL-2.0-only. LICENSES has licenses and all SPDX tags. license-rules for simplification uses only some and the ones there could be understood as preferred. Probably this should be changed first. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..982cb8d62011 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) +# Copyright 2024 Linaro Ltd. +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/firmware/google,gs101-acpm-ipc.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: Samsung Exynos ACPM mailbox protocol + +maintainers: + - Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org> + +description: | + ACPM (Alive Clock and Power Manager) is a firmware that operates on the + APM (Active Power Management) module that handles overall power management + activities. ACPM and masters regard each other as independent hardware + component and communicate with each other using mailbox messages and + shared memory. + + This binding is intended to define the interface the firmware implementing + ACPM provides for OSPM in the device tree. + +properties: + compatible: + const: google,gs101-acpm-ipc + + mboxes: + maxItems: 1 + + shmem: + description: + List of phandle pointing to the shared memory (SHM) area. The memory + contains channels configuration data and the TX/RX ring buffers that + are used for passing messages to/from the ACPM firmware. + maxItems: 1 + +required: + - compatible + - mboxes + - shmem + +additionalProperties: false + +examples: + - | + power-management { + compatible = "google,gs101-acpm-ipc"; + mboxes = <&ap2apm_mailbox>; + shmem = <&apm_sram>; + };