[PATCH 3/8] doc: test: Add docs and test for part_find

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 10:09, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 09:16:57AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Heinrich,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 01:16, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 09.12.24 17:27, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Add some documentation and a test for this new command.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't this be two patches?
> >
> > Often we put the new command, its docs and tests in the same commit,
> > since the question I always ask when looking at a command is, where
> > are the docs and tests!
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > >   doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >   doc/usage/index.rst         |   1 +
> > > >   test/cmd/Makefile           |   1 +
> > > >   test/cmd/part_find.c        |  42 +++++++++++++
> > > >   4 files changed, 163 insertions(+)
> > > >   create mode 100644 doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst
> > > >   create mode 100644 test/cmd/part_find.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 00000000000..fd5bd6578d5
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/doc/usage/cmd/part_find.rst
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
> > > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+:
> > >
> > > This is not a valid SPDX identifier.
> > > Cf. https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html
> >
> > I have seen this point made a few times, but I'm afraid I still don't
> > fully understand it:
> >
> > The Licenses/README lists the licenses and GPL-2.0+ appears in there.
> > In the source tree:
> >
> > $ git grep GPL-2.0+ |wc -l
> > 13406
> > $ git grep GPL-2.0-or-later |wc -l
> > 1847
> >
> > I have to say I much prefer GPL-2.0+ as it is easier to remember.
> >
> > But if we are planning to change, could you update checkpatch to throw
> > a warning?
>
> As I've said before too, GPL-2.0+ is deprecated by SPDX and
> GPL-2.0-or-later is the correct tag. But we aren't, sadly, right now a
> best practices example for SPDX anyhow and so it's not a deal breaker to
> use the old tag, just something that should be avoided.

OK, I will try to remember this.

At minimum, if this is important, Licenses/README should be updated to
drop the old license?

Heinrich, please update checkpatch to warn about this.

Regards,
Simon