Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: add machine driver with
 mt6359, rt1011 and rt5682
To:     Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@mediatek.com>, broonie@kernel.org,
        tiwai@suse.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com
Cc:     devicetree@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        aaronyu@google.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
References: <20210910104405.11420-1-trevor.wu@mediatek.com>
 <20210910104405.11420-2-trevor.wu@mediatek.com>
 <10fc49fa-9791-0225-365d-e3074680596c@linux.intel.com>
 <4d703c5f7cf27ddc8b9886b111ffeeba0c4aa08b.camel@mediatek.com>
 <1d7fe7455a054819daf05d41ab3658afdc1caced.camel@mediatek.com>
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <c34d03ff-f349-724e-0dcf-7893f3622cd9@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:46:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1d7fe7455a054819daf05d41ab3658afdc1caced.camel@mediatek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


>>>> +/* Module information */
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("MT8195-MT6359-RT1011-RT5682 ALSA SoC machine
>>>> driver");
>>>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@mediatek.com>");
>>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>>>
>>> "GPL" is enough
>>>
>>
>> I see many projects use GPL v2 here, and all mediatek projects use
>> GPL
>> v2, too.
>> I'm not sure which one is better.
>> Do I need to modify this?

See
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html?highlight=module_license#id1

Loadable kernel modules also require a MODULE_LICENSE() tag. This tag is
neither a replacement for proper source code license information
(SPDX-License-Identifier) nor in any way relevant for expressing or
determining the exact license under which the source code of the module
is provided.

“GPL”

Module is licensed under GPL version 2. This does not express any
distinction between GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later. The exact license
information can only be determined via the license information in the
corresponding source files.

“GPL v2”

Same as “GPL”. It exists for historic reasons.

So "GPL v2" is not incorrect but for new contributions you might as well
use the recommended tag.