On 21/11/2022 14:29, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> Any reason why this is licensed BSD-3 clause? It's not a recommended >>>> license (2 clause is). Same for other patches. >>> >>> Probably a bad copy-paste from other existing files. >>> >>> While checking, the majority of arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm*.dtsi uses BSD-3-Clause >>> so it seems this was done for quite a while now. >> >> If it is derivative work (of upstrea, downstream), then you might have >> to keep BSD-3. But if not, how about changing it to BSD-2? > > It's definitely a derivative work from upstream pm*.dtsi files with BSD-3-Clause > licence. OK. Best regards, Krzysztof
