On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Kumar Gala [off-list ref] wro=
te:

On Sep 18, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:

quoted

On Sep 17, 2010, at 10:14 PM, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@kernel.cras=

hing.org> wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 20:20 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:

quoted

I don't see any reason to limit it to GPL drivers. =A0Not only that, b=

ut

quoted

quoted

quoted

then we'll have this:

I do

Can you elaborate on that, or are you just going to pull rank on me?

quoted

quoted

EXPORT_SYMBOL(ppc_proc_freq);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ppc_tb_freq);

That just looks dumb.

Right, so send a patch to fix the first one too :-)

I don't think either of these should be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. =A0Why shouldn=

't a binary module be allowed to know these frequencies? =A0My view is why =
preclude anyone from using this how they want. =A0If they want to live in t=
he gray area so be it. =A0Who am I to say they shouldn't have that choice.

It is not, in my opinion, about what is technically possible and what
isn't.  The kernel is licensed under the GPL.  This is a Linux kernel
only symbol.  One would be hard pressed to claim they have a driver
that wasn't written for Linux that happens to need that symbol.  As a
member of the Linux kernel community, I find it important to encourage
the contribution of code back to the kernel, and this is one way to
help that.  This isn't BSD.

Besides, a developer is free to export it however they wish in their
own kernel tree.  They can deviate from mainline if they so choose.

josh