Re: [PATCH v1 04/17] xen/riscv: introduce device-agnostic MMIO emulation dispatch

[Baptiste Le Duc <baptiste.le-duc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2026-08-10 17:36:56+02:00, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> On 8/10/26 4:49 PM, Baptiste Le Duc wrote:
> 
> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/mmio.h 
> >> b/xen/arch/riscv/include/asm/mmio.h
> > 
> > According to coding style, it should be GPL-2.0-only.
> 
> Could you please point me to the line in the coding style document where 
> this is mentioned?
> 
> If you are referring to:
>    New files should start with a single-line SPDX comment to express the
>    license, e.g.:
> 
>    /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> 
>    See LICENSES/ for a list of licenses and SPDX tags currently used.
> 
> Then my understanding is that /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only 
> */ is used only as an example, and I can choose any license from 
> LICENSES/. There, it is mentioned:
>    Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.0-only
>    Valid-License-Identifier: LGPL-2.0-or-later
> 
> I am pretty sure that I am free to choose any license that does not 
> conflict with the other licenses used in the project.
> 
Oh ok I didn't know, thanks for these explanations. Could you let me
know how do you choose one instead of the other in that case? Is there a
rule from our company to follow somewhere?
> >> +#ifndef RISCV_MMIO_H
> > 
> > Nit: line too long (85)
> 
> I will apply that. Actually I've already fixed that by putting the 
> comment above:
>    /* store: value to write; load: value read (set by handler) */
>    register_t data;
> 
> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/riscv/mmio.c b/xen/arch/riscv/mmio.c
> > Should be GPL-2.0-only.
> 
> Regarding license I've wrote a comment above so lets continue discussion 
> there.
> 
> >> +/*
> > Why have you included a copyright notice here, but not in the other
> > files?
> 
> So I just decided to do that for new files as I am not using corporate 
> e-mail.
But why didn't you do it for all new files of this series?
> 
> I don’t know if you can keep it,
> 
> Good point, I have to ask then someone from our legal department...
> 
>   but I just wanted to point out
> 
> > that there are other files where this type of copyright notice includes
> > the year.
> 
> Before, I used to include the year, but someone pointed out (or perhaps 
> I misunderstood) that there isn’t much point in including it and that it 
> is enough to have just (c) <company name>.
> 
Okay thanks.
> Thanks.
> 
> ~ Oleksii