On 2/8/22 16:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On 08/02/2022 15:40, Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On 2/8/22 13:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >>> >>> On 08/02/2022 11:49, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >>>> Convert Atmel AES documentation to yaml format. With the conversion the >>>> clock and clock-names properties are made mandatory. The driver returns >>>> -EINVAL if "aes_clk" is not found, reflect that in the bindings and make >>>> the clock and clock-names properties mandatory. Update the example to >>>> better describe how one should define the dt node. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> .../crypto/atmel,at91sam9g46-aes.yaml | 65 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> .../bindings/crypto/atmel-crypto.txt | 20 ------ >>>> 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/atmel,at91sam9g46-aes.yaml >>>> >>> >>> I understand that you keep the license GPL-2.0 (not recommended mix) >>> because of example coming from previous bindings or from DTS (both GPL-2.0)? >>> >> >> The previous bindings did not have a license specified. We have DTS files with >> these nodes that are either (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) or GPL-2.0-or-later. The drivers >> are GPL-2.0. I thought to follow the drivers. I see the example in [1] uses >> (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause). I see the crypto bindings that are converted >> to yaml are either (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) or GPL-2.0-only. Is there >> another guideline that I miss? >> > > Yes, there is. Run checkpatch (your question kinds of point to the fact > that you did not run it...): > WARNING: DT binding documents should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR > BSD-2-Clause) Right. I usually run checkpatch --strict, but this warning slipped somehow. Maybe because of the two other false positives, too much noise. > > > If your new bindings use copied/derivative description or DTS code which > is licensed as only GPL-2.0, the bindings itself as derivative work > might need to stay as GPL-2.0 as well. Unless copyright holders agree to > re-license this as GPL2-OR-BSD. As representing company, your patch > might be enough to re-license, but maybe other people contributed. I > don't know. > > I just wanted to be sure that you use GPL-2.0 in purpose, because > GPL2-OR-BSD cannot be used. Ok, thanks for the explanation. I have to admit I'm not too familiar with the contents of each license. Will read them and come back with a follow up. ta
