Add valgrind headers to U-Boot

Valgrind uses magic code sequences to define an ABI that the client may use
to request behavior from the host. In particular, this may be used to
inform valgrind about custom allocators, such as the one used in U-Boot.

This adds headers defining these sequences to U-Boot. It also adds a config
option to disable emission of these sequences entirely, in the (likely)
event that the user does not wish to use valgrind. Note that this option is
called NVALGRIND upstream, but was renamed (and inverted) to
CONFIG_VALGRIND. Aside from this and the conversion of a few instances of
VALGRIND_DO_CLIENT_REQUEST_EXPR to STMT, these headers are unmodified.

These headers were copied from valgrind 3.16.1-4 as distributed in Arch
Linux. They are licensed with the bzip2 1.16 license. This appears to be a
BSD license with some clauses from Zlib.

Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

Add MIT License

Signed-off-by: Anastasiia Lukianenko <anastasiia_lukianenko@epam.com>

Licenses/README: Update some style and add explicit license to the document

- Add an SPDX license tag to the file, saying it's GPL-2.0.
- From the Linux Kernel v4.17-rc4, import the "License identifier
syntax" section as-is from Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
and then change it to be clearer about examples from the Linux Kernel
vs examples found in U-Boot, and when we're talking about U-Boot.

Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

License: Add the Open Font License

This is used by two of the font files. Add this license to permit tracking
of this. The copyright text cannot be added to the .ttf files, so put it
here.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Anatolij Gustschin <agust@denx.de>

SPDX: add X11 SPDX-License-Identifier

These is a growing trend to license DT files dual GPL and X11
especially in the Linux community. It allows easier reuse of
device trees for other software projects.

This commit prepares for doing so in U-Boot too, since DT files are
often copied from the kernel to U-Boot.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>

Licenses: fix a typo in README

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>

SPDX: Add ISC SPDX-License-Identifier

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

SPDX: document dual license notation

In [1] we discussed how we should deal with dual (or, more generally,
multiple) licensed files. Add this to Licenses/README so it's
properly documented.

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166518

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
[trini: Add the word 'list' to the end of the line, per Stephen Warren's
feedback]
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>

SPDX: fix IBM-pibs license identifier

The SPDX License List version 1.19 now contains an official entry for
the IBM-pibs license. However, instead of our suggestion "ibm-pibs",
the SPDX License List uses "IBM-pibs", with the following rationale:
"The reason being that all other SPDX License List short identifiers
tend towards using capital letters unless spelling a word. I'd prefer
to be consistent to this end".

Change the license IDs to use the official name.

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

SPDX-License-Identifier: convert BSD-3-Clause files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
[trini Don't remove some copyrights by accident]
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>

SPDX-License-Identifier: convert PIBS licensed files

This commit adapts the files that were derived from PIBS (PowerPC
Initialization and Boot Software) codeto using SPDX License
Identifiers.

So far, SPDX has not assigned an official License ID for the PIBS
license yet, so this should be considered preliminary.

Note that the following files contained incorrect license information:

arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_uart.c
arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/start.S
arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc440.h

These files included, in addition to the GPL-2.0 / ibm-pibs dual
license as inherited from PIBS, a GPL-2.0+ license header which was
obviously incorrect. This has been removed.

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Conflicts:
Licenses/README
Acked-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>

libfdt: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ BSD-2-Clause

Signed-off-by: Roger Meier <roger@bufferoverflow.ch>
Acked-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Add eCos-2.0 SPDX-License-Identifier to source files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Add LGPL-2.0+ SPDX-License-Identifier to source files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Add LGPL-2.1+ SPDX-License-Identifier to source files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Licenses: introduce SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers

Like many other projects, U-Boot has a tradition of including big
blocks of License headers in all files. This not only blows up the
source code with mostly redundant information, but also makes it very
difficult to generate License Clearing Reports. An additional problem
is that even the same lincenses are referred to by a number of
slightly varying text blocks (full, abbreviated, different
indentation, line wrapping and/or white space, with obsolete address
information, ...) which makes automatic processing a nightmare.

To make this easier, such license headers in the source files will be
replaced with a single line reference to Unique Lincense Identifiers
as defined by the Linux Foundation's SPDX project [1]. For example,
in a source file the full "GPL v2.0 or later" header text will be
replaced by a single line:

SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+

We use the SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers here; these are available
at [2].

Note: From the legal point of view, this patch is supposed to be only
a change to the textual representation of the license information,
but in no way any change to the actual license terms. With this patch
applied, all files will still be licensed under the same terms they
were before.

Note 2: The apparent difference between the old "COPYING" and the new
"Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt" only results from switching to the upstream
version of the license which is differently formatted; there are not
any actual changes to the content.

Note 3: There are some recurring questions about linense issues, such
as:
- Is a "All Rights Reserved" clause a problem in GPL code?
- Are files without any license header a problem?
- Do we need license headers at all?

The following excerpt from an e-mail by Daniel B. Ravicher should help
with these:

| Message-ID: <4ADF8CAA.5030808@softwarefreedom.org>
| Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:22 -0400
| From: "Daniel B. Ravicher" <ravicher@softwarefreedom.org>
| To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
| Subject: Re: GPL and license cleanup questions
|
| Mr. Denk,
|
| Wolfgang Denk wrote:
| > - There are a number of files which do not include any specific
| > license information at all. Is it correct to assume that these files
| > are automatically covered by the "GPL v2 or later" clause as
| > specified by the COPYING file in the top level directory of the
| > U-Boot source tree?
|
| That is a very fact specific analysis and could be different across the
| various files. However, if the contributor could reasonably be expected
| to have known that the project was licensed GPLv2 or later at the time
| she made her contribution, then a reasonably implication is that she
| consented to her contributions being distributed under those terms.
|
| > - Do such files need any clean up, for example should we add GPL
| > headers to them, or is this not needed?
|
| If the project as a whole is licensed under clear terms, you need not
| identify those same terms in each file, although there is no harm in
| doing so.
|
| > - There are other files, which include both a GPL license header
| > _plus_ some copyright note with an "All Rights Reserved" clause. It
| > has been my understanding that this is a conflict, and me must ask
| > the copyright holders to remove such "All Rights Reserved" clauses.
| > But then, some people claim that "All Rights Reserved" is a no-op
| > nowadays. License checking tools (like OSLC) seem to indicate this is
| > a problem, but then we see quite a lot of "All rights reserved" in
| > BSD-licensed files in gcc and glibc. So what is the correct way to
| > deal with such files?
|
| It is not a conflict to grant a license and also reserve all rights, as
| implicit in that language is that you are reserving all "other" rights
| not granted in the license. Thus, a file with "Licensed under GPL, All
| Rights Reserved" would mean that it is licensed under the GPL, but no
| other rights are given to copy, modify or redistribute it.
|
| Warm regards,
| --Dan
|
| Daniel B. Ravicher, Legal Director
| Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Moglen Ravicher LLC
| 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl., New York, NY 10023
| (212) 461-1902 direct (212) 580-0800 main (212) 580-0898 fax
| ravicher@softwarefreedom.org www.softwarefreedom.org

[1] http://spdx.org/
[2] http://spdx.org/licenses/

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Add MIT License

Signed-off-by: Anastasiia Lukianenko <anastasiia_lukianenko@epam.com>

Licenses/README: Update some style and add explicit license to the document

- Add an SPDX license tag to the file, saying it's GPL-2.0.
- From the Linux Kernel v4.17-rc4, import the "License identifier
syntax" section as-is from Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
and then change it to be clearer about examples from the Linux Kernel
vs examples found in U-Boot, and when we're talking about U-Boot.

Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

License: Add the Open Font License

This is used by two of the font files. Add this license to permit tracking
of this. The copyright text cannot be added to the .ttf files, so put it
here.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Anatolij Gustschin <agust@denx.de>

SPDX: add X11 SPDX-License-Identifier

These is a growing trend to license DT files dual GPL and X11
especially in the Linux community. It allows easier reuse of
device trees for other software projects.

This commit prepares for doing so in U-Boot too, since DT files are
often copied from the kernel to U-Boot.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>

Licenses: fix a typo in README

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>

SPDX: Add ISC SPDX-License-Identifier

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

SPDX: document dual license notation

In [1] we discussed how we should deal with dual (or, more generally,
multiple) licensed files. Add this to Licenses/README so it's
properly documented.

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166518

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
[trini: Add the word 'list' to the end of the line, per Stephen Warren's
feedback]
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>

SPDX: fix IBM-pibs license identifier

The SPDX License List version 1.19 now contains an official entry for
the IBM-pibs license. However, instead of our suggestion "ibm-pibs",
the SPDX License List uses "IBM-pibs", with the following rationale:
"The reason being that all other SPDX License List short identifiers
tend towards using capital letters unless spelling a word. I'd prefer
to be consistent to this end".

Change the license IDs to use the official name.

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

SPDX-License-Identifier: convert BSD-3-Clause files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
[trini Don't remove some copyrights by accident]
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>

SPDX-License-Identifier: convert PIBS licensed files

This commit adapts the files that were derived from PIBS (PowerPC
Initialization and Boot Software) codeto using SPDX License
Identifiers.

So far, SPDX has not assigned an official License ID for the PIBS
license yet, so this should be considered preliminary.

Note that the following files contained incorrect license information:

arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_uart.c
arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/start.S
arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc440.h

These files included, in addition to the GPL-2.0 / ibm-pibs dual
license as inherited from PIBS, a GPL-2.0+ license header which was
obviously incorrect. This has been removed.

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Conflicts:
Licenses/README
Acked-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>

libfdt: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ BSD-2-Clause

Signed-off-by: Roger Meier <roger@bufferoverflow.ch>
Acked-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Add eCos-2.0 SPDX-License-Identifier to source files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Add LGPL-2.0+ SPDX-License-Identifier to source files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Add LGPL-2.1+ SPDX-License-Identifier to source files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Licenses: introduce SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers

Like many other projects, U-Boot has a tradition of including big
blocks of License headers in all files. This not only blows up the
source code with mostly redundant information, but also makes it very
difficult to generate License Clearing Reports. An additional problem
is that even the same lincenses are referred to by a number of
slightly varying text blocks (full, abbreviated, different
indentation, line wrapping and/or white space, with obsolete address
information, ...) which makes automatic processing a nightmare.

To make this easier, such license headers in the source files will be
replaced with a single line reference to Unique Lincense Identifiers
as defined by the Linux Foundation's SPDX project [1]. For example,
in a source file the full "GPL v2.0 or later" header text will be
replaced by a single line:

SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+

We use the SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers here; these are available
at [2].

Note: From the legal point of view, this patch is supposed to be only
a change to the textual representation of the license information,
but in no way any change to the actual license terms. With this patch
applied, all files will still be licensed under the same terms they
were before.

Note 2: The apparent difference between the old "COPYING" and the new
"Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt" only results from switching to the upstream
version of the license which is differently formatted; there are not
any actual changes to the content.

Note 3: There are some recurring questions about linense issues, such
as:
- Is a "All Rights Reserved" clause a problem in GPL code?
- Are files without any license header a problem?
- Do we need license headers at all?

The following excerpt from an e-mail by Daniel B. Ravicher should help
with these:

| Message-ID: <4ADF8CAA.5030808@softwarefreedom.org>
| Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:22 -0400
| From: "Daniel B. Ravicher" <ravicher@softwarefreedom.org>
| To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
| Subject: Re: GPL and license cleanup questions
|
| Mr. Denk,
|
| Wolfgang Denk wrote:
| > - There are a number of files which do not include any specific
| > license information at all. Is it correct to assume that these files
| > are automatically covered by the "GPL v2 or later" clause as
| > specified by the COPYING file in the top level directory of the
| > U-Boot source tree?
|
| That is a very fact specific analysis and could be different across the
| various files. However, if the contributor could reasonably be expected
| to have known that the project was licensed GPLv2 or later at the time
| she made her contribution, then a reasonably implication is that she
| consented to her contributions being distributed under those terms.
|
| > - Do such files need any clean up, for example should we add GPL
| > headers to them, or is this not needed?
|
| If the project as a whole is licensed under clear terms, you need not
| identify those same terms in each file, although there is no harm in
| doing so.
|
| > - There are other files, which include both a GPL license header
| > _plus_ some copyright note with an "All Rights Reserved" clause. It
| > has been my understanding that this is a conflict, and me must ask
| > the copyright holders to remove such "All Rights Reserved" clauses.
| > But then, some people claim that "All Rights Reserved" is a no-op
| > nowadays. License checking tools (like OSLC) seem to indicate this is
| > a problem, but then we see quite a lot of "All rights reserved" in
| > BSD-licensed files in gcc and glibc. So what is the correct way to
| > deal with such files?
|
| It is not a conflict to grant a license and also reserve all rights, as
| implicit in that language is that you are reserving all "other" rights
| not granted in the license. Thus, a file with "Licensed under GPL, All
| Rights Reserved" would mean that it is licensed under the GPL, but no
| other rights are given to copy, modify or redistribute it.
|
| Warm regards,
| --Dan
|
| Daniel B. Ravicher, Legal Director
| Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Moglen Ravicher LLC
| 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl., New York, NY 10023
| (212) 461-1902 direct (212) 580-0800 main (212) 580-0898 fax
| ravicher@softwarefreedom.org www.softwarefreedom.org

[1] http://spdx.org/
[2] http://spdx.org/licenses/

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Licenses/README: Update some style and add explicit license to the document

- Add an SPDX license tag to the file, saying it's GPL-2.0.
- From the Linux Kernel v4.17-rc4, import the "License identifier
syntax" section as-is from Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
and then change it to be clearer about examples from the Linux Kernel
vs examples found in U-Boot, and when we're talking about U-Boot.

Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>

License: Add the Open Font License

This is used by two of the font files. Add this license to permit tracking
of this. The copyright text cannot be added to the .ttf files, so put it
here.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Anatolij Gustschin <agust@denx.de>

SPDX: add X11 SPDX-License-Identifier

These is a growing trend to license DT files dual GPL and X11
especially in the Linux community. It allows easier reuse of
device trees for other software projects.

This commit prepares for doing so in U-Boot too, since DT files are
often copied from the kernel to U-Boot.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>

Licenses: fix a typo in README

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>

SPDX: Add ISC SPDX-License-Identifier

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

SPDX: document dual license notation

In [1] we discussed how we should deal with dual (or, more generally,
multiple) licensed files. Add this to Licenses/README so it's
properly documented.

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/166518

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
[trini: Add the word 'list' to the end of the line, per Stephen Warren's
feedback]
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>

SPDX: fix IBM-pibs license identifier

The SPDX License List version 1.19 now contains an official entry for
the IBM-pibs license. However, instead of our suggestion "ibm-pibs",
the SPDX License List uses "IBM-pibs", with the following rationale:
"The reason being that all other SPDX License List short identifiers
tend towards using capital letters unless spelling a word. I'd prefer
to be consistent to this end".

Change the license IDs to use the official name.

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

SPDX-License-Identifier: convert BSD-3-Clause files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
[trini Don't remove some copyrights by accident]
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>

SPDX-License-Identifier: convert PIBS licensed files

This commit adapts the files that were derived from PIBS (PowerPC
Initialization and Boot Software) codeto using SPDX License
Identifiers.

So far, SPDX has not assigned an official License ID for the PIBS
license yet, so this should be considered preliminary.

Note that the following files contained incorrect license information:

arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/4xx_uart.c
arch/powerpc/cpu/ppc4xx/start.S
arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc440.h

These files included, in addition to the GPL-2.0 / ibm-pibs dual
license as inherited from PIBS, a GPL-2.0+ license header which was
obviously incorrect. This has been removed.

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Conflicts:
Licenses/README
Acked-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>

libfdt: SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ BSD-2-Clause

Signed-off-by: Roger Meier <roger@bufferoverflow.ch>
Acked-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Add eCos-2.0 SPDX-License-Identifier to source files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Add LGPL-2.0+ SPDX-License-Identifier to source files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Add LGPL-2.1+ SPDX-License-Identifier to source files

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

Licenses: introduce SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers

Like many other projects, U-Boot has a tradition of including big
blocks of License headers in all files. This not only blows up the
source code with mostly redundant information, but also makes it very
difficult to generate License Clearing Reports. An additional problem
is that even the same lincenses are referred to by a number of
slightly varying text blocks (full, abbreviated, different
indentation, line wrapping and/or white space, with obsolete address
information, ...) which makes automatic processing a nightmare.

To make this easier, such license headers in the source files will be
replaced with a single line reference to Unique Lincense Identifiers
as defined by the Linux Foundation's SPDX project [1]. For example,
in a source file the full "GPL v2.0 or later" header text will be
replaced by a single line:

SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+

We use the SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers here; these are available
at [2].

Note: From the legal point of view, this patch is supposed to be only
a change to the textual representation of the license information,
but in no way any change to the actual license terms. With this patch
applied, all files will still be licensed under the same terms they
were before.

Note 2: The apparent difference between the old "COPYING" and the new
"Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt" only results from switching to the upstream
version of the license which is differently formatted; there are not
any actual changes to the content.

Note 3: There are some recurring questions about linense issues, such
as:
- Is a "All Rights Reserved" clause a problem in GPL code?
- Are files without any license header a problem?
- Do we need license headers at all?

The following excerpt from an e-mail by Daniel B. Ravicher should help
with these:

| Message-ID: <4ADF8CAA.5030808@softwarefreedom.org>
| Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:22 -0400
| From: "Daniel B. Ravicher" <ravicher@softwarefreedom.org>
| To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
| Subject: Re: GPL and license cleanup questions
|
| Mr. Denk,
|
| Wolfgang Denk wrote:
| > - There are a number of files which do not include any specific
| > license information at all. Is it correct to assume that these files
| > are automatically covered by the "GPL v2 or later" clause as
| > specified by the COPYING file in the top level directory of the
| > U-Boot source tree?
|
| That is a very fact specific analysis and could be different across the
| various files. However, if the contributor could reasonably be expected
| to have known that the project was licensed GPLv2 or later at the time
| she made her contribution, then a reasonably implication is that she
| consented to her contributions being distributed under those terms.
|
| > - Do such files need any clean up, for example should we add GPL
| > headers to them, or is this not needed?
|
| If the project as a whole is licensed under clear terms, you need not
| identify those same terms in each file, although there is no harm in
| doing so.
|
| > - There are other files, which include both a GPL license header
| > _plus_ some copyright note with an "All Rights Reserved" clause. It
| > has been my understanding that this is a conflict, and me must ask
| > the copyright holders to remove such "All Rights Reserved" clauses.
| > But then, some people claim that "All Rights Reserved" is a no-op
| > nowadays. License checking tools (like OSLC) seem to indicate this is
| > a problem, but then we see quite a lot of "All rights reserved" in
| > BSD-licensed files in gcc and glibc. So what is the correct way to
| > deal with such files?
|
| It is not a conflict to grant a license and also reserve all rights, as
| implicit in that language is that you are reserving all "other" rights
| not granted in the license. Thus, a file with "Licensed under GPL, All
| Rights Reserved" would mean that it is licensed under the GPL, but no
| other rights are given to copy, modify or redistribute it.
|
| Warm regards,
| --Dan
|
| Daniel B. Ravicher, Legal Director
| Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Moglen Ravicher LLC
| 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl., New York, NY 10023
| (212) 461-1902 direct (212) 580-0800 main (212) 580-0898 fax
| ravicher@softwarefreedom.org www.softwarefreedom.org

[1] http://spdx.org/
[2] http://spdx.org/licenses/

Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>