Hi John,
On 15/04/2024 12:17, John Ernberg wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 4/15/24 1:03 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 15/04/2024 11:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 15/04/2024 11:25 am, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi John,
I saw this patch was committed. I have one question this may require
some adjustment.
On 08/04/2024 17:11, John Ernberg wrote:
---
xen/arch/arm/platforms/Makefile | 1 +
xen/arch/arm/platforms/imx8qm.c | 139
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 140 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 xen/arch/arm/platforms/imx8qm.c
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/platforms/Makefile
b/xen/arch/arm/platforms/Makefile
index 8632f4115f..bec6e55d1f 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/platforms/Makefile
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/platforms/Makefile
@@ -9,5 +9,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ALL_PLAT) += sunxi.o
obj-$(CONFIG_ALL64_PLAT) += thunderx.o
obj-$(CONFIG_ALL64_PLAT) += xgene-storm.o
obj-$(CONFIG_ALL64_PLAT) += brcm-raspberry-pi.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_ALL64_PLAT) += imx8qm.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MPSOC_PLATFORM) += xilinx-zynqmp.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MPSOC_PLATFORM) += xilinx-zynqmp-eemi.o
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/platforms/imx8qm.c
b/xen/arch/arm/platforms/imx8qm.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..3600a073e8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/platforms/imx8qm.c
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
The majority of Xen code is using GPL-2.0-only. In the early days for
Xen on Arm we started to use GPLv2+ which I consider it was a mistake.
Unfortunately this started to spread as people copied/pasted the same
copyright headers.
So can you confirm whether you intended to use GPL-2.0+? If not would
you be able to send a patch to adjust it? (Better to it before there
are more modifications).
Julien: I've called you out multiple times before.
And there are multiple thread explaining why I am requesting if we can
use GPLv2-only. In fact from CONTRIBUTING:
The recommended license of a directory will depend on the COPYING file.
If the new file is using a different license, this should be highlighted
and discussed in the commit message or cover letter introducing the
file.
Since part of the code was not written by me, but by Peng, I think both
of us need to agree to a license change if one is to be made.
Ah I didn't realize that Peng also contributed. Let's wait if he is
happy with the change.
Also, offline, I was pointed out that I could explain a little bit more
why I asked if this could be changed. From [1]:
"IIRC from past discussion there are two broads concern with GPLv2+:
- We are leaving the choice of which license applies to the person
copying the code. So if a new version is released that is less favorable
to the initial contributor, then we have no leverage.
- Some companies are rather cautious to contribute code that may be
licensed under GPLv3 (would be allowed with GPLv2+).
The later is particularly a problem because not many people realize that
a fair part of Xen on Arm is GPLv2+. I never really understood why we
chose that (this was before my time) but this got spread as the existing
copyright was added to a new file. Admittely, the contributor should be
more cautious. But I would not say this is trivial to spot the difference."
Cheers,
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/f235f6f8-d585-4e24-7fc8-3f2df9240...@xen.org/
--
Julien Grall
