On 2023/1/25 8:25, Kevin Hilman wrote:
[ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
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 `+`
Okay.
Kevin
