On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 19:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 26/07/2022 15:44, Jagan Teki wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 at 02:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 23/07/2022 22:43, Jagan Teki wrote: > >>> Add power-domain header for RV1126 SoC from description in TRM. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> include/dt-bindings/power/rv1126-power.h | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+) > >>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/rv1126-power.h > >>> > >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/rv1126-power.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/rv1126-power.h > >>> new file mode 100644 > >>> index 000000000000..f15930ff06f7 > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/rv1126-power.h > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ > >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > >> > >> Dual license and a blank line, please. > > > > Yes, all rockchip power includes (at least here) are GPL-2.0 what is > > the issue with it? > > The headers are part of bindings and all bindings should be dual > licensed, so they can be used in other projects. > > Of course if copyright holder does not agree to release it on BSD, then > it would be fine as exception. Also would be fine from us not to accept > such bindings. :) I don't hold anything here to use dual-licensing. The only thing I'm wondering here is none of the rockchip power includes (which are merged) are using dual-licensing they simply have GPL-2.0 which is used in BSP. Let me know what you suggest? Thanks, Jagan.
