All headers from 'include/dt-bindings/' must be verified by checkpatch
together with Documentation bindings, because all of them are part of
the whole DT bindings system.
The requirement is dual licensed and matching patterns:
* Schemas:
/GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR BSD-2-Clause/
* Headers:
/GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR \S+/
Above patterns suggested by Rob at:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAL_Jsq+-YJsBO+LuPJ=ZQ=eb-monrwzuCppvReH+af7hYZzNaQ@mail.gmail.com
The issue was found during patch review:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]>
---
Changes v5 since v4 at [4]:
- only capital OR is acceptable for SPDX per Rob's suggestion
Changes v4 since v3 at [3]:
- introduce separate pattern for dt-bindings headers following Rob's
suggestion
Changes v3 since v2 at [2]:
- replace 'not =~' expression with '!~' to be aligned with other
checkpatch lines
Changes v2 since v1 at [1]:
- include/dt-bindings check is aligned to open parens
- introduce more strict pattern for bindings license:
/GPL-2\.0(?:-only|-or-later|\+)? (?:OR|or) BSD-2-Clause/
Links:
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 78cc595b98ce..7d9b63fffa9d 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -3710,7 +3710,7 @@ sub process {
"'$spdx_license' is not supported in LICENSES/...\n" . $herecurr);
}
if ($realfile =~ m@^Documentation/devicetree/bindings/@ &&
- not $spdx_license =~ /GPL-2\.0.*BSD-2-Clause/) {
+ $spdx_license !~ /GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR BSD-2-Clause/) {
my $msg_level = \&WARN;
$msg_level = \&CHK if ($file);
if (&{$msg_level}("SPDX_LICENSE_TAG",
@@ -3720,6 +3720,11 @@ sub process {
$fixed[$fixlinenr] =~ s/SPDX-License-Identifier: .*/SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)/;
}
}
+ if ($realfile =~ m@^include/dt-bindings/@ &&
+ $spdx_license !~ /GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR \S+/) {
+ WARN("SPDX_LICENSE_TAG",
+ "DT binding headers should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR .*)\n" . $herecurr);
+ }
}
}
}
--
2.36.0
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 2:17 PM Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> All headers from 'include/dt-bindings/' must be verified by checkpatch
> together with Documentation bindings, because all of them are part of
> the whole DT bindings system.
>
> The requirement is dual licensed and matching patterns:
> * Schemas:
> /GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR BSD-2-Clause/
> * Headers:
> /GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR \S+/
>
> Above patterns suggested by Rob at:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAL_Jsq+-YJsBO+LuPJ=ZQ=eb-monrwzuCppvReH+af7hYZzNaQ@mail.gmail.com
>
> The issue was found during patch review:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes v5 since v4 at [4]:
> - only capital OR is acceptable for SPDX per Rob's suggestion
>
> Changes v4 since v3 at [3]:
> - introduce separate pattern for dt-bindings headers following Rob's
> suggestion
>
> Changes v3 since v2 at [2]:
> - replace 'not =~' expression with '!~' to be aligned with other
> checkpatch lines
>
> Changes v2 since v1 at [1]:
> - include/dt-bindings check is aligned to open parens
> - introduce more strict pattern for bindings license:
> /GPL-2\.0(?:-only|-or-later|\+)? (?:OR|or) BSD-2-Clause/
>
> Links:
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Hello Joe,
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:29:36AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 2:17 PM Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > All headers from 'include/dt-bindings/' must be verified by checkpatch
> > together with Documentation bindings, because all of them are part of
> > the whole DT bindings system.
> >
> > The requirement is dual licensed and matching patterns:
> > * Schemas:
> > /GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR BSD-2-Clause/
> > * Headers:
> > /GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR \S+/
> >
> > Above patterns suggested by Rob at:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAL_Jsq+-YJsBO+LuPJ=ZQ=eb-monrwzuCppvReH+af7hYZzNaQ@mail.gmail.com
> >
> > The issue was found during patch review:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Changes v5 since v4 at [4]:
> > - only capital OR is acceptable for SPDX per Rob's suggestion
> >
> > Changes v4 since v3 at [3]:
> > - introduce separate pattern for dt-bindings headers following Rob's
> > suggestion
> >
> > Changes v3 since v2 at [2]:
> > - replace 'not =~' expression with '!~' to be aligned with other
> > checkpatch lines
> >
> > Changes v2 since v1 at [1]:
> > - include/dt-bindings check is aligned to open parens
> > - introduce more strict pattern for bindings license:
> > /GPL-2\.0(?:-only|-or-later|\+)? (?:OR|or) BSD-2-Clause/
> >
> > Links:
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > ---
> > scripts/checkpatch.pl | 7 ++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Are you okay with this patch version? Rob is good with that, so please
advise what the next step is.
--
Thank you,
Dmitry
On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 14:39 +0300, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> Hello Joe,
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:29:36AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 2:17 PM Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > All headers from 'include/dt-bindings/' must be verified by checkpatch
> > > together with Documentation bindings, because all of them are part of
> > > the whole DT bindings system.
> > >
> > > The requirement is dual licensed and matching patterns:
> > > * Schemas:
> > > /GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR BSD-2-Clause/
> > > * Headers:
> > > /GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR \S+/
> > >
> > > Above patterns suggested by Rob at:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAL_Jsq+-YJsBO+LuPJ=ZQ=eb-monrwzuCppvReH+af7hYZzNaQ@mail.gmail.com
> > >
> > > The issue was found during patch review:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > Changes v5 since v4 at [4]:
> > > - only capital OR is acceptable for SPDX per Rob's suggestion
[]
> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
>
> Are you okay with this patch version? Rob is good with that, so please
> advise what the next step is.
Yes, I'm fine with it. Andrew Morton can apply it at his leisure.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 08:02:53AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 14:39 +0300, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> > Hello Joe,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 09:29:36AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 2:17 PM Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All headers from 'include/dt-bindings/' must be verified by checkpatch
> > > > together with Documentation bindings, because all of them are part of
> > > > the whole DT bindings system.
> > > >
> > > > The requirement is dual licensed and matching patterns:
> > > > * Schemas:
> > > > /GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR BSD-2-Clause/
> > > > * Headers:
> > > > /GPL-2\.0(?:-only)? OR \S+/
> > > >
> > > > Above patterns suggested by Rob at:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAL_Jsq+-YJsBO+LuPJ=ZQ=eb-monrwzuCppvReH+af7hYZzNaQ@mail.gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > The issue was found during patch review:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes v5 since v4 at [4]:
> > > > - only capital OR is acceptable for SPDX per Rob's suggestion
> []
> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> >
> > Are you okay with this patch version? Rob is good with that, so please
> > advise what the next step is.
>
> Yes, I'm fine with it. Andrew Morton can apply it at his leisure.
>
Sure, I look forward to receiving Andrew's comments in due course.
Thanks a lot for quick feedback!
--
Thank you,
Dmitry