On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 1:26 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 02:52:46PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > 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? > > It is derived from the text binding, so strictly speaking that's derived > work. Are descriptions (because that's really all we take) enough to be > copyrightable? That's another question... > > I don't know so I err on the side of keep GPL-2.0-only *only*. > > Will anyone ever care? Not likely. > > Rob Just to be safe I'll change the license to GPL-2.0-only then. Thank you everyone for the feedback, I'll fix everything and resend the patch. Regards, Shresth
