On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 15:37:22 +0800 andy.t...@nxp.com wrote: Hi Andy,
> From: Yuantian Tang <andy.t...@nxp.com> > > Signed-off-by: Yuantian Tang <andy.t...@nxp.com> > --- > v2: update copyright year > > arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/lowlevel.S | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/lowlevel.S > b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/lowlevel.S > index d8803738f1..a40175cb3f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/lowlevel.S > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/fsl-layerscape/lowlevel.S > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ */ > /* > * (C) Copyright 2014-2015 Freescale Semiconductor > - * Copyright 2019 NXP > + * Copyright 2019-2022 NXP That would not be needed. The common opinion out there(TM) seems to be that the *end* of the copyright period is mostly irrelevant. One rationale is that it would only apply 75 years after the death of the author, whatever that means for "NXP". But also the copyright statement should only be updated when *significant* changes are made to the file (which are "copyright worthy"). Fixing a bug with a single line is definitely not in that category. If nothing else, this is just churn and tends to create pointless and annoying merge conflicts. I know that some projects like TF-A have a different opinion on that. I am trying to teach them for years now ;-) > * > * Extracted from armv8/start.S > */ > @@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ ENTRY(fsl_ocram_clear_ecc_err) > ldr x0, =DCSR_DCFG_MBEESR2 > str w1, [x0] > ret > -ENDPROC(fsl_ocram_init) > +ENDPROC(fsl_ocram_clear_ecc_err) That looks correct, so with the copyright change removed: Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> Cheers, Andre > #endif > > #ifdef CONFIG_FSL_LSCH3
