Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: SPDX identifier
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
References: <b04655c7-5a6e-b510-5fcf-30ecca489882@broadcom.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1905162015460.3196@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Message-ID: <7cc73717-def2-effa-f0d9-4512b8501955@broadcom.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 21:48:01 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1905162015460.3196@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 5/16/2019 8:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Arend,
> 
> On Thu, 16 May 2019, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> 
>> Hi Kalle, Thomas,
>>
>> I added SPDX tags in brcm80211 driver sources. Although it is a no-brainer I
>> decided to run checkpatch for the changes and quirky stuff started to happen.
>> For all files I added:
>>
>> // SPDX-License-Identifier
>>
>> but checkpatch started complaining I should use /* ... */ instead of //.
>>
>> WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for
>> 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h', please use
>> '/*' instead
>> #29: FILE: drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/include/brcm_hw_ids.h:1:
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: ISC
>>
>> So I edited all patches and ran again. And again it started complaining.
>>
>> WARNING: Improper SPDX comment style for
>> 'drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/aiutils.c', please use '//'
>> instead
>>
>> So now I am in a bonkers state. It seems for header files we want /* */ and
>> for c files we want //. For real?
> 
> See Documentation. This is historical because the older binutils choked on
> '//' comments. Not longer an issue as we moved to more modern binutils by
> now. So we can fixup the documentation and allow // style for headers as well.

Right. I was pointed at the documentation already. I will ignore the 
warning for my series and stick with // style for both.

Thanks,
Arend