Re: [PATCH 3/3] xen/arm: vpci: Move content of xen/arch/arm/vpci.h to arch header

["Orzel, Michal" <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>]

+Rahul

On 02/04/2026 04:44, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> On 01/04/2026 15:58, Michal Orzel wrote:
>> Move domain_vpci_init() and domain_vpci_get_num_mmio_handlers()
>> declarations from the private xen/arch/arm/vpci.h into the public
>> xen/arch/arm/include/asm/vpci.h, and remove the now redundant
>> private header.
> 
> Can you provide a brief explanation why we don't couldn't include 
> "vpci.h" from "arch/arm/vpci.c"? Such approach would ...
Yes, we could but I think it's better not to use local headers if the main ones
under include already exists. This matches the x86.

> 
>>
>> Update domain.c to include <asm/vpci.h> instead of the removed private
>> header.
>>
>> This ensures the declarations are visible where the functions are
>> defined, resolving a MISRA C Rule 8.4 violation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> I'm moving a file with GPL2+ license to a file with GPL2-only. I consider 
>> this
>> ok in this case becase the copyright on a file with just prototypes does not
>> make any sense and a license text was most likely blindly copy-pasted like 
>> for
>> most of the files in that era.
> 
> ... avoid the licensing discussion. I am in the opinion that it is ok to 
> move from GPLv2+ to GPLv2 because the license says "either version 2 of 
> the License, or (at your option) any later version". But I remember not 
> everyone agrees on this interpretation and we never solved the 
> discussion on whether we need to request permission from the original 
> copyright holder.
> 
> Alternatively, I see this file was only modified by two companies (EPAM 
> and Arm). I see one employee of each company are already CCed. So you 
> could confirm with them if the change is fine.
The header was introduced by Rahul Singh from Arm and Oleksandr Andruschenko
from EPAM. @Rahul, @Bertrand, @Volodymyr - are you ok to move this file to
GPL2-only?

~Michal