[i2c] [RFC] Lifebook apanel driver
dmitry.torokhov at gmail.com
Thu Jan 4 21:09:20 CET 2007
On 1/4/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 09:15:53 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> > On 1/4/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +config INPUT_APANEL
> > > > + tristate "Fujitsu Lifebook Application Panel buttons"
> > > > + depends on X86 && !X86_64
> > > > + select I2C
> > > > + help
> > >
> > > Broken indentation, you should be using tabs not spaces. Also, drivers
> > > should depend on I2C, not select it. Mixing both tends to be confusing.
> > >
> > I think we should select major subsystems cores (or things needed of
> > they are "downsteam" in config from the option being considered) and
> > use depend either for hardware limitations or for features of a
> > subsystem.
> I'm not discussing whether doing things differently would be better or
> not. I'm only asking for consistency. Right now, subsystems (PCI, USB,
> I2C) are "depended on", not "selected", and it matters to do that
> consistently, otherwise the use gets easily confused.
I have bunch of patches (yet to be submitted) that moveinput drivers
from drivers/usb/input to dtivers/input/... and they are selecting
USB. If you look at menuconfig structure it dopes not make sense for
user to have to visit input menu, then go to USB menu, then return
back to input menu to select additional drivers that were not visible
> If you think things should be different, feel free to discuss it on
> LKML, send patches etc. but that's not the point here.
> > > > +/*
> > > > + SMBus client for the Fujitsu Lifebook Application Panel
> > > > +
> > > > + Copyright (C) 2007 Stephen Hemminger <shemminger at osdl.org>
> > > > + Copyright (C) 2001-2003 Jochen Eisinger <jochen at penguin-breeder.org>
> > > > +
> > > > + This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > > > + it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > > > + the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > > > + (at your option) any later version.
> > >
> > > Actually not, the kernel is GPLv2 only.
> > The kernel as a whole is GPLv2 however individual modules are not
> > necessary GPLv2. We have mix of BSD, GPLv2 and GPLv2+. It is up to the
> > author to decide.
> Ah, I never realized that. So I must stop asking contributors to change
> that, thanks for letting me know.
> Now, I get to wonder what it really means in practice when Linus claims
> loudly that "Linux is GPL v2 only", while 99% of the drivers have their
> license set to "GPL" and not "GPL v2".
In my limited understanding (not a lawyer) you can take all the code
released under GPLv2+, replace the parts that are GPLv2 only and
release Jeanux under GPLv3 ;)
It is all becomes a little muddied with patches applied on top that do
not specify license. It could be argued that since general kernel
revision is V2 any patches are V2 only. One also argue that if person
submitting patch wishes that the resulting code can be distributed as
V2 only he/she should change license notice on the file in question.
More information about the i2c