On 2/8/22 17:27, Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On 2/8/22 16:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >> >> 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) > > Right. I usually run checkpatch --strict, but this warning slipped somehow. > Maybe because of the two other false positives, too much noise. >> >> >> 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. > > Ok, thanks for the explanation. I have to admit I'm not too familiar with > the contents of each license. Will read them and come back with a follow up. > Did some documentation work, and yes, we can use the recommended bindings license: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause). Will resubmit. Thanks, Krzysztof! ta
