[alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 8/9] soundwire: intel: remove platform devices and provide new interface

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

On 9/18/19 8:54 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 03:53:02PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 08:48:33AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>> On 9/18/19 7:06 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 09:29:52AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>>> On 9/17/19 12:55 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 04:23:41PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>> + * sdw_intel_probe() - SoundWire Intel probe routine
>>>>>>> + * @parent_handle: ACPI parent handle
>>>>>>> + * @res: resource data
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * This creates SoundWire Master and Slave devices below the controller.
>>>>>>> + * All the information necessary is stored in the context, and the res
>>>>>>> + * argument pointer can be freed after this step.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +struct sdw_intel_ctx
>>>>>>> +*sdw_intel_probe(struct sdw_intel_res *res)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	return sdw_intel_probe_controller(res);
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(sdw_intel_probe);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>> + * sdw_intel_startup() - SoundWire Intel startup
>>>>>>> + * @ctx: SoundWire context allocated in the probe
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +int sdw_intel_startup(struct sdw_intel_ctx *ctx)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	return sdw_intel_startup_controller(ctx);
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(sdw_intel_startup);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are you exporting these functions if no one calls them?
>>>>>
>>>>> They are used in the next series, see '[RFC PATCH 04/12] ASoC: SOF: Intel:
>>>>> add SoundWire configuration interface'
>>>>
>>>> That wasn't obvious :)
>>>>
>>>> Also, why not EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()?  :)
>>>
>>> Since the beginning of this SoundWire work, the intent what that the code
>>> could be reused in non-GPL open-source circles, hence the dual license and
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL.
>>
>> Hah, you _have_ talked to your lawyers about this, right?
>>
>> You have a chance to do something like this for header files, for .c
>> files, good luck.  That's going to be a hard road to go down.  Many have
>> tried in the past, all but 1 have failed.
> 
> Also note, the last I checked, the _default_ license for Linux kernel
> code from Intel was GPLv2.  If you got an exception for this, please
> work with your legal council on how to do this "properly" as that was
> part of getting that exception, right?
> 
> If you didn't get the exception, um, you have some people to go talk to,
> and how come I am the one asking you about this?  :(

All the legal due-diligence was done when SoundWire was initially 
contributed in 2018. You asked that question at the time and I will 
point you to the email exchange Alan Cox and you had on this topic [1].

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10015813/