On 13/01/2025 09:45, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 4:21 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 13/01/2025 09:06, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 9:56 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/01/2025 13:39, Andras Szemzo wrote: >>>>> As the device tree needs the clock/reset indices, add them to DT binding >>>>> headers. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andras Szemzo <szemzo.andras@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> That's never a separate commit from the binding. >>>> >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/sun8i-v853-r-ccu.h >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ >>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ >>>>> +/* Copyright(c) 2020 - 2023 Allwinner Technology Co.,Ltd. All rights reserved. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2023 rengaomin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> + */ >>>>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_CLK_SUN8I_V85X_R_CCU_H_ >>>>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_CLK_SUN8I_V85X_R_CCU_H_ >>>>> + >>>>> +#define CLK_R_TWD 0 >>>>> +#define CLK_R_PPU 1 >>>>> +#define CLK_R_RTC 2 >>>>> +#define CLK_R_CPUCFG 3 >>>>> + >>>>> +#define CLK_R_MAX_NO (CLK_R_CPUCFG + 1) >>>> >>>> Nope, drop. Not a binding. >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> +#endif >>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/reset/sun8i-v853-ccu.h b/include/dt-bindings/reset/sun8i-v853-ccu.h >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 000000000000..89d94fcbdb55 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/reset/sun8i-v853-ccu.h >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ >>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ >>>> >>>> Odd license. Did you copy the file with such license from the downstream? >>> >>> AFAIK all the existing sunxi clock / reset binding header files are >>> dual licensed. OOTH all the YAML files are GPL 2.0 only. >>> >>> IIRC we started out GPL 2.0 only, but then figured that the header files >>> couldn't be shared with non-GPL projects, so we changed those to dual >>> license. >>> >>> Hope that explains the current situation. Relicensing the whole lot >>> to just MIT or BSD is probably doable. >> That's not what the comment is about. Dual license, as expressed by >> submitting bindings/patches and enforced by checkpatch are expected. But >> not GPLv3, GPLv4 and GPLv10. > > I take back my statement. It seems we have a lot of GPLv2 or later going on. There are a lot of bugs, so we can add them as well? > > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun20i-d1-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: > (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun20i-d1-r-ccu.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-a100-ccu.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-a100-r-ccu.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-h6-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: > (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-h6-r-ccu.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-h616-ccu.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun5i-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: > GPL-2.0-or-later */ > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun6i-rtc.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: > (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun8i-de2.h: * SPDX-License-Identifier: > (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun8i-tcon-top.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: > (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/clock/suniv-ccu-f1c100s.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) > include/dt-bindings/reset/sun20i-d1-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: > (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/reset/sun20i-d1-r-ccu.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-a100-ccu.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-a100-r-ccu.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-h6-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: > (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-h6-r-ccu.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-h616-ccu.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > include/dt-bindings/reset/sun5i-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: > GPL-2.0-or-later */ > include/dt-bindings/reset/sun8i-de2.h: * SPDX-License-Identifier: > (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) > include/dt-bindings/reset/suniv-ccu-f1c100s.h:/* > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) > > Is there a requirement that new files have to be GPL 2.0 only, not > GPL 2.0 or later? I think that's obvious preference and brought to the list multiple times already. And that's easy to justify reversing the question: why would GPLv4 be okay here? If you can find the reason, sure we can go with 2.0+. If you cannot find the reason, well, it's obvious, right? Best regards, Krzysztof
