On 13/04/2022 14:14, Rohit Agarwal wrote: > > On 4/13/2022 12:03 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 13/04/2022 08:29, Rohit Agarwal wrote: >>> On 4/12/2022 2:52 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 12/04/2022 07:07, Rohit Agarwal wrote: >>>>> Add interconnect IDs for Qualcomm SDX65 platform. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> (...) >>>> >>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,sdx65.h b/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,sdx65.h >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 0000000..8d02c79 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,sdx65.h >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ >>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ >>>> Is it possible to license it the same as bindings (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)? >>> The qcom related code are marked as GPL 2.0 license >> This I see here, unless you meant some other qcom related code? > > Yes, I meant the other codes as well because most of them I see (for eg. > sdx55) have added only GPL 2.0. Happens, maybe no one pointed out this. The bindings, including headers because these are part of bindings, are expected to have (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) license. Just because some bindings or some binding headers have GPL-2.0, is not a justification that wrong license should be used. Best regards, Krzysztof
