On 08/02/2022 15:40, Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 2/8/22 13:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >> >> On 08/02/2022 11:49, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >>> Convert Atmel AES documentation to yaml format. With the conversion the >>> clock and clock-names properties are made mandatory. The driver returns >>> -EINVAL if "aes_clk" is not found, reflect that in the bindings and make >>> the clock and clock-names properties mandatory. Update the example to >>> better describe how one should define the dt node. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../crypto/atmel,at91sam9g46-aes.yaml | 65 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> .../bindings/crypto/atmel-crypto.txt | 20 ------ >>> 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/atmel,at91sam9g46-aes.yaml >>> >> >> I understand that you keep the license GPL-2.0 (not recommended mix) >> because of example coming from previous bindings or from DTS (both GPL-2.0)? >> > > The previous bindings did not have a license specified. We have DTS files with > these nodes that are either (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) or GPL-2.0-or-later. The drivers > are GPL-2.0. I thought to follow the drivers. I see the example in [1] uses > (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause). I see the crypto bindings that are converted > to yaml are either (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) or GPL-2.0-only. Is there > another guideline that I miss? > Yes, there is. Run checkpatch (your question kinds of point to the fact that you did not run it...): WARNING: DT binding documents should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) If your new bindings use copied/derivative description or DTS code which is licensed as only GPL-2.0, the bindings itself as derivative work might need to stay as GPL-2.0 as well. Unless copyright holders agree to re-license this as GPL2-OR-BSD. As representing company, your patch might be enough to re-license, but maybe other people contributed. I don't know. I just wanted to be sure that you use GPL-2.0 in purpose, because GPL2-OR-BSD cannot be used. Best regards, Krzysztof
