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

[Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/11/26 10:17 AM, Baptiste Le Duc wrote:
> 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?
I don't know about any specific rule from our company.

In different situations different licenses could/should be used. 
Specifically here I used GPL-2.0-or-later as this code partially is 
based on Arm code which uses this license so I just re-use it.
> > > > +#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?
If there are such cases then I just missed to add it. I will double 
check during preparation of v2.
~ Oleksii