[PATCH 09/83] hsa/radeon: Add code base of hsa driver for AMD's GPUs

[Jerome Glisse]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 06:02:39PM +0000, Bridgman, John wrote:
> >From: Jerome Glisse [mailto:j.glisse at gmail.com]
> >Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:04 PM
> >To: Oded Gabbay
> >Cc: David Airlie; Deucher, Alexander; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; dri-
> >devel at lists.freedesktop.org; Bridgman, John; Lewycky, Andrew; Joerg
> >Roedel; Gabbay, Oded; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki; Kishon Vijay
> >Abraham I; Sandeep Nair; Kenneth Heitke; Srinivas Pandruvada; Santosh
> >Shilimkar; Andreas Noever; Lucas Stach; Philipp Zabel
> >Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/83] hsa/radeon: Add code base of hsa driver for
> >AMD's GPUs
> >
> >On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50:09AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> >> This patch adds the code base of the hsa driver for
> >> AMD's GPUs.
> >>
> >> This driver is called kfd.
> >>
> >> This initial version supports the first HSA chip, Kaveri.
> >>
> >> This driver is located in a new directory structure under drivers/gpu.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay at amd.com>
> >
> >There is too coding style issues. While we have been lax on the enforcing the
> >scripts/checkpatch.pl rules i think there is a limit to that. I am not strict
> >on the 80chars per line but others things needs fixing so we stay inline.
> >
> >Also i am a bit worried about the license, given top comment in each of the
> >files i am not sure this is GPL2 compatible. I would need to ask lawyer to
> >review that.
> >
> 
> Hi Jerome,
> 
> Which line in the license are you concerned about ? In theory we're using the same license as the initial code pushes for radeon, and I just did a side-by side compare with the license header on cik.c in the radeon tree and confirmed that the two licenses are identical. 
> 
> The cik.c header has an additional "Authors:" line which the kfd files do not, but AFAIK that is not part of the license text proper.
> 

You can not claim GPL if you want to use this license. radeon is weird
best for historical reasons as we wanted to share code with BSD thus it
is dual licensed and this is reflected with :
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");

inside radeon_drv.c

So if you want to have MODULE_LICENSE(GPL) then you should have header
that use the GPL license wording and no wording from BSD like license.
Otherwise change the MODULE_LICENSE and it would also be good to say
dual licensed at top of each files (or least next to each license) so
that it is clear this is BSD & GPL license.

Cheers,
Jérôme