Yu Tu <yu.tu@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Kevin, > > On 2023/1/19 8:38, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ] >> >> Yu Tu <yu.tu@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On 2023/1/16 16:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-peripherals-clkc.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-peripherals-clkc.h >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 000000000000..bbec5094d5c3 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-peripherals-clkc.h >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ >>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ >>>> >>>> Unusual license... are you sure to license the bindings under GPLv4 or >>>> GPLv5? Fine by me. >>>> >>> >>> Yes. >> >> The rest of the bindings for Amlogic SoCs are GPL-2.0 (without the '+'). >> Adding the dual-license for MIT seems fine, but adding the '+' is >> curious. >> >> It would be helpful if you could please explain why you'd like these >> bindings to be licensed differently than the rest of the SoC family. >> > > I actually refer to the previous g12a Soc. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc4/source/include/dt-bindings/clock/g12a-clkc.h > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc4/source/include/dt-bindings/clock/axg-clkc.h > [...] > > So if you think it is not necessary, I will delete the '+' as you > suggested. Don't know what you choose? Drop the `+` Kevin
