Hi Heinrich, On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 01:16, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 09.12.24 17:27, Simon Glass wrote: > > Add some documentation and a test for this new command. > > Shouldn't this be two patches?
Often we put the new command, its docs and tests in the same commit, since the question I always ask when looking at a command is, where are the docs and tests! > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > doc/usage/index.rst | 1 + > > test/cmd/Makefile | 1 + > > test/cmd/part_find.c | 42 +++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 163 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst > > create mode 100644 test/cmd/part_find.c > > > > diff --git a/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..fd5bd6578d5 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst > > @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+: > > This is not a valid SPDX identifier. > Cf. https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html I have seen this point made a few times, but I'm afraid I still don't fully understand it: The Licenses/README lists the licenses and GPL-2.0+ appears in there. In the source tree: $ git grep GPL-2.0+ |wc -l 13406 $ git grep GPL-2.0-or-later |wc -l 1847 I have to say I much prefer GPL-2.0+ as it is easier to remember. But if we are planning to change, could you update checkpatch to throw a warning? Regards, SImon
