Hi Simon, On Friday, November 30, 2018, Simon Horman wrote: > > + - RZ/A2M Eval Board (RTK7921053S00000BE) > > + compatible = "renesas,rza2mevb", "renesas,r7s9210" > > - RZN1D-DB (RZ/N1D Demo Board for the RZ/N1D 400 pins package) > > compatible = "renesas,rzn1d400-db", "renesas,r9a06g032" > > - Salvator-X (RTP0RC7795SIPB0010S) > > Pleas separate the change above into a separate patch. > Such changes typically go upstream via a separate branch. OK. Looking through the history log, I saw it different ways, so I was not sure. > I am wondering about the motivation for dual-licensing this file. > It does not seem to be something Renesas has done before with > upstream DT. > > I am also wondering if the dual licence, if it remains, can be > described using SPDX. A while back, I was reading/hearing about how board DT file do not have to be GPL and the user should not have to be forced to make this GPL. (Maybe at some ELC conference or on LWN or something) So in our RZ/A BSP that I release to customers I would use this dual license. You can see the exact same license in a number of dts files in mainline. Since there is no SPDX for this, I figure Rob might have some opinion on the matter. And, if I have to make it GLP for the mainline version, then I will just replace the license when I release the customer BSP (since I wrote it, I can do that). But, I would be nice to keep the BSP version as close to mainline as I can. Chris
