Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] acpi: Add TPM2 interface definition.

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 03.05.2023 01:29, Jennifer Herbert wrote:
> On 02/05/2023 14:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 25.04.2023 19:47, Jennifer Herbert wrote:
>>> --- a/tools/libacpi/acpi2_0.h
>>> +++ b/tools/libacpi/acpi2_0.h
>>> @@ -121,6 +121,36 @@ struct acpi_20_tcpa {
>>>   };
>>>   #define ACPI_2_0_TCPA_LAML_SIZE (64*1024)
>>>   
>>> +/*
>>> + * TPM2
>>> + */
>> Nit: While I'm willing to accept the comment style violation here as
>> (apparently) intentional, ...
> 
> Well, I was trying to keep the file consistant.   As far as I can tell, 
> this styling is used thoughout the file - unless I'm misunderstanding 
> your 'Nit'. (You object to a multi-line coment used for a single line? )
> But I'm codes style blind, so just say how you want it.

Right - strictly speaking those multi-line comments all ought to be single-
line ones, but aiui they're multi-line intentionally so they stand out.
Hence - as you say, for consistency - it's okay for this one to follow
suit.

>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/tools/libacpi/ssdt_tpm2.asl
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
>>> +/*
>>> + * ssdt_tpm2.asl
>>> + *
>>> + * Copyright (c) 2018-2022, Citrix Systems, Inc.
>>> + *
>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published
>>> + * by the Free Software Foundation; version 2.1 only. with the special
>>> + * exception on linking described in file LICENSE.
>>> + *
>>> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>>> + * GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
>>> + */
>> While the full conversion to SPDX was done in the hypervisor only so far,
>> I think new tool stack source files would better use the much shorter
>> SPDX equivalent, too.
> 
> OK, this is where I get a bit confused.  I belive I copied the licence 
> from ssdt_tpm.asl, for consistancy.
> 
> So I think i need to use a 'LGPL-2.1-only' but then it says its using 
> exceptions on linking as discribed in LICENSE, but um, which LICENSE 
> file?  So i'm not sure what exception I should be adding. Do you know?

First of all I think commit 68823df358e8 ("acpi: Re-license ACPI builder
files from GPLv2 to LGPLv2.1") was wrong using LICENSE; I'm pretty sure
COPYING was meant instead. And indeed the difference between libacpi's
COPYING and LICENCES/LGPL-2.1 look to be formatting plus an extra section
at the bottom of the latter; I haven't found any "special exception on
linking" anywhere. IOW I think using LGPL-2.1 here is what is wanted
(unlike e.g. GPL-2.0-only there's no LGPL-2.1-only afaics), the more that
you're contributing a new file (and of course provided you're okay to put
the new file under that license).

Jan