On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:58 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 06:15:45PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > Adopt the SPDX license identifier headers to ease license > > compliance management on Allwinner A64 dts(i) files. > > > > While the text specifies "of the GPL or the X11 license" > > but the actual license text matches the MIT license as > > specified at [0] > > > > [0] https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html > > > > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-bananapi-m64.dts | 39 +------------------ > > .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-nanopi-a64.dts | 39 +------------------ > > .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-olinuxino.dts | 39 +------------------ > > .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-orangepi-win.dts | 39 +------------------ > > .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-pine64-plus.dts | 39 +------------------ > > .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-pine64.dts | 39 +------------------ > > .../allwinner/sun50i-a64-sopine-baseboard.dts | 39 +------------------ > > .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-sopine.dtsi | 39 +------------------ > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi | 39 +------------------ > > 9 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 342 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-bananapi-m64.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-bananapi-m64.dts > > index 208373efee49..efdd84c362b0 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-bananapi-m64.dts > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-bananapi-m64.dts > > @@ -1,43 +1,6 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) > > You say that this is a GPL2 only license > > > /* > > * Copyright (c) 2016 ARM Ltd. > > - * > > - * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms > > - * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual > > - * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a > > - * whole. > > - * > > - * a) This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > > - * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as > > - * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the > > - * License, or (at your option) any later version. > > While this is GPL2 or later. Yes, this is where I was confused with compared to existing architectures. It seems like it is a call from author of the file or make GPL-2.0 for generic purpose [1], not really sure. > > Also, I'm not sure why we need 25 patches to do that. Can't you just > send one (there's no even need to separate arm and arm64, since we > will do only a single PR from now as opposed to what we were doing > before). Just to make a clear conversion possible with individual SoC + boards files, I did based on existing arch's does. np, if require I can send it in single patch. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10963113/
