[alsa-devel] [PATCH 3/3] ASoC: AMD: add AMD ASoC ACP-I2S driver [v4]

[Alex Deucher]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:30:27PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> >> v4: squash in naming fixes
>
>> > To repeat what I said last time:
>
>> > | Please follow the patch submission process in SubmittingPatches: put any
>> > | versioning in the subject line inside the [] and put noise like inter
>> > | version changelogs after the ---.
>
>> I addressed this in my coverletter.  Some subsystems prefer to retain
>> that information.  If you'd prefer to not have them in the audio patch
>> I will remove them.
>
> When I said to follow the standard process here that's what I meant,
> yes.  It's basically just the graphics subsystem that does something
> different here, and note that if you are going to include a changelog
> (either in the normal place or the DRM place) it really ought to
> actually describe the changes that have been made - the above doesn't
> reflect the changes that were made at all.

OK.  I'll respin the patch.

>
>> > I also remain very concerned about this non-GPL license you are using.
>> > Please do not ignore review comments like this :(
>
>> I mentioned this in the cover letter as well.  Most if not all of the
>> drm drivers are licensed the same way.  IANAL, but I am not aware of
>> any concerns about them.
>
> DRM is a special case here since there has always been work to share
> bits of the code with other operating systems, the licensing for DRM is
> very unusual within the kernel.  A quick sampling of drivers suggests
> that this license is not universally used there either.
>
> There is also the issue I raised with the fact that your non-GPL license
> statement does not appear to correspond to the MODULE_LICENSE() that
> you've included which claims the code is GPLed.

Once again this is exactly what the other drm drivers and support
modules do.  AMD generally prefers to contribute code licensed under
an MIT/X11 style licence which is why we've done this.  IANAL, but I
think that is compatible with "GPL and additional rights".

Alex