Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

2016-09-21 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 21.09.16 at 15:34, wrote: > On 09/21/2016 06:39 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 20.09.16 at 02:19, wrote: >>> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi/dsdt.asl >>> +++ /dev/null >> Please try to represent this as a move, not as a

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

2016-09-21 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 09/21/2016 06:39 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 20.09.16 at 02:19, wrote: >> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi/dsdt.asl >> +++ /dev/null > Please try to represent this as a move, not as a delete+create. This was done by 'git mv' and patches were generated with

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

2016-09-21 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 20.09.16 at 02:19, wrote: > --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi/dsdt.asl > +++ /dev/null Please try to represent this as a move, not as a delete+create. > +Scope ( \_SB.PCI0 ) > +{ > +Name ( BUFA, ResourceTemplate() { IRQ(Level, ActiveLow,

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

2016-09-20 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 09/20/2016 10:19 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Boris Ostrovsky writes ("Re: [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code > from seeping into non-GPL binaries"): >> But yes, I can split dsdt.asl as well. Should we keep _S5 definition as >> GPL-only? > I think once we're going down this route there

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

2016-09-20 Thread Ian Jackson
Boris Ostrovsky writes ("Re: [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries"): > But yes, I can split dsdt.asl as well. Should we keep _S5 definition as > GPL-only? I think once we're going down this route there is no benefit in trying to argue for individual

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

2016-09-20 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
On 09/20/2016 06:14 AM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from > seeping into non-GPL binaries"): >> Some code (specifically, introduced by commit 801d469ad ("[HVM] ACPI >> support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT table.")) has only been licensed

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

2016-09-20 Thread Lars Kurth
On 20/09/2016 11:14, "Ian Jackson" wrote: >Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code >from seeping into non-GPL binaries"): >> Some code (specifically, introduced by commit 801d469ad ("[HVM] ACPI >> support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

2016-09-20 Thread Lars Kurth
On 20/09/2016 01:19, "Boris Ostrovsky" wrote: >Some code (specifically, introduced by commit 801d469ad ("[HVM] ACPI >support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT table.")) has only been licensed under >GPLv2. We want to prevent this code from showing up in non-GPL >binaries

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

2016-09-20 Thread Ian Jackson
Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries"): > Some code (specifically, introduced by commit 801d469ad ("[HVM] ACPI > support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT table.")) has only been licensed under > GPLv2. We want to prevent this code from

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/21] acpi: Prevent GPL-only code from seeping into non-GPL binaries

2016-09-19 Thread Boris Ostrovsky
Some code (specifically, introduced by commit 801d469ad ("[HVM] ACPI support patch 3 of 4: ACPI _PRT table.")) has only been licensed under GPLv2. We want to prevent this code from showing up in non-GPL binaries which might become possible after we make ACPI builder code available to users other