sensor/stmemsc: Align stmemsc i/f to v1.02

[avisconti]

Align stmemsc HAL i/f from v1.00 to v1.02.

Signed-off-by: Armando Visconti armando.visconti@st.com

EDIT::
This module is used/tested by zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr#19430

[avisconti]

@erwango
Can you take a look pls?
Thx!

[avisconti]

@erwango @nashif
Any comment here?

[galak]

Is there a zephyr PR that uses this for build testing?

[erwango]

Please remove .ioc files

[avisconti]

Is there a zephyr PR that uses this for build testing?

@galak
Yes, #19430

[avisconti]

@erwango
Removed and repushed

[avisconti]

@nashif @galak
Any feedback from your side?

[avisconti]

@MaureenHelm Any comment about this PR?

[avisconti]

@nashif @galak @MaureenHelm
Any further comment?

[MaureenHelm]

Can you please use SPDX tags in the next version?

[erwango]

Can you please use SPDX tags in the next version?

@MaureenHelm, do you mean we need to use Apache 2.0 licenses in modules ?

[avisconti]

Can you please use SPDX tags in the next version?

@MaureenHelm, do you mean we need to use Apache 2.0 licenses in modules ?

Actually I would not change the source code. If possible I would keep it the same.

[MaureenHelm]

Can you please use SPDX tags in the next version?

@MaureenHelm, do you mean we need to use Apache 2.0 licenses in modules ?

No, BSD 3-clause is fine. This PR replaced the license text with:

 * This software component is licensed by ST under BSD 3-Clause license,
 * the "License"; You may not use this file except in compliance with the
 * License. You may obtain a copy of the License at:
 *                        opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

It would have been nice if instead it replaced the license text with a standard SPDX tag. Is this something you could do in the next upstream release of stmemsc?

[avisconti]

Can you please use SPDX tags in the next version?

@MaureenHelm, do you mean we need to use Apache 2.0 licenses in modules ?

No, BSD 3-clause is fine. This PR replaced the license text with:

 * This software component is licensed by ST under BSD 3-Clause license,
 * the "License"; You may not use this file except in compliance with the
 * License. You may obtain a copy of the License at:
 *                        opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

It would have been nice if instead it replaced the license text with a standard SPDX tag. Is this something you could do in the next upstream release of stmemsc?

@MaureenHelm
Is this done also in other modules?
Because I would keep the files exactly the same as the original ones.

[MaureenHelm]

Is this done also in other modules?
Because I would keep the files exactly the same as the original ones.

Other modules (e.g., mcux, nrfx, cmsis) have SPDX tags in their original upstream versions. We don't add SPDX tags for zephyr because they're already there. Can you make this happen for stmemsc too?

[avisconti]

Is this done also in other modules?
Because I would keep the files exactly the same as the original ones.

Other modules (e.g., mcux, nrfx, cmsis) have SPDX tags in their original upstream versions. We don't add SPDX tags for zephyr because they're already there. Can you make this happen for stmemsc too?

I need to ask internally.
Basically the request is to replace in every .c .h the following

 *
 * This software component is licensed by ST under BSD 3-Clause license,
 * the "License"; You may not use this file except in compliance with the
 * License. You may obtain a copy of the License at:
 *                        opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
 *

with

* Copyright (c) 2019 STMicroelectronics
* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD 3-Clause

Is that correct?
Because I need to formalize the request.

[MaureenHelm]

Is that correct?

Close, but you're missing a hyphen: SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause

[avisconti]

Is that correct?

Close, but you're missing a hyphen: SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause

I think it would be ok, but I would like to be consistent with stm32cube.
@erwango are you considering to ask the change of the block license to SPDX?

[erwango]

@MaureenHelm, I'm curious of this request.
I though purpose of modules was to be able to allow re-use of existing components as is (as long as the license is compliant). Hence I don't catch why we'd have request from project on these packages.
One reason would be that it's easier if I don't have to change files when updating the module from official packages.

This being said, I can check if Cube project is willing to move to SPDX usage, but this is a long shot.

[MaureenHelm]

I think it would be ok, but I would like to be consistent with stm32cube.

Agreed

This being said, I can check if Cube project is willing to move to SPDX usage, but this is a long shot.

That's what I'm asking for. It's nice to have for code scanning purposes, but not required.

cc: @kestewart