On 13/06/2024 12:33, Johan Jonker wrote: > > > On 6/13/24 12:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 13/06/2024 11:44, Johan Jonker wrote: >>>> --- >>> >>> Add ack request from phy maintainer here. >> > >> Why? What do you mean for that? Why phy maintainer needs to ack patches >> he is going to take? > > See my text below: > From my past converting phy documents experience asking was needed to smooths things up ... > Let me know if things have improved. > > grf.yaml can be busy at times. Let Heiko take care of the merge order. > Ask for an ack from the phy maintainers in your commit message below a "---" > >> >>> >>>> Changes in v3: >>>> - fix `reg` in example being too long >>>> >>>> Tested against `rockchip/rk3399-firefly.dtb`, `rockchip/rk3399-orangepi.dtb` >>>> and `rockchip/rk3399-pinebook-pro.dtb`. >>>> >>>> .../bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml | 79 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> .../bindings/phy/rockchip-emmc-phy.txt | 43 ---------- >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip/grf.yaml | 2 +- >>>> 3 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml >>>> delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-emmc-phy.txt >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 000000000000..85d74b343991 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ >>> >>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) >>> >>> You are converting an existing document, so GPL 2 only. >> > >> Which copyrightable part was copied? This comment is not correct in >> general, because conversions are dual-licensed (there are exceptions, >> but that's the generic rule). > > Was told to do so in the past by the maintainers(Rob??) for text documents conversions.(Can't find exactly were in lore, must be in one my first conversion patches) > If someone was submitting as GPL2 long time ago then the derived/converted work still hold the same license. > Let me know if the consensus has changed. Consensus did not change but I am no sure if you got it right. It was about copied copyrightable text. Which part was copied here? I think there is none, so just like with almost all conversions, please use dual license. Best regards, Krzysztof
