On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 04:55:08PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > Hello Rob, > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:11 AM Gregory CLEMENT > > <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Add the yaml bindings for Mobileye SoCs. Currently only EyeQ5 is > >> supported > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> .../devicetree/bindings/mips/mobileye.yaml | 36 +++++++++ > >> include/dt-bindings/soc/mobileye,eyeq5.h | 77 +++++++++++++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 113 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/mobileye.yaml > >> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/soc/mobileye,eyeq5.h > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/mobileye.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/mobileye.yaml > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 000000000000..f47767bc2c8f > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/mobileye.yaml > >> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ > >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause > > > > Use what checkpatch tells you. > > >From my point of view GPL-2.0-or-later is compatible with GPL-2.0-only, > but OK I will do this. GPL-2.0-only is compatible with GPL3, so why does that matter? And MIT is compatible with BSD-2-Clause, but we don't include that. Are we okay with GPLv4, v5, ...? What I really care about is having a free-for-all and having a proliferation of different licenses and combinations of licenses under bindings. If everyone paid attention, then I wouldn't care. But they don't and just copy code around. We already have a license mess with DT headers and .dts files. Besides the copying problem, it is not hard to find GPL only license included in dual or BSD/MIT only licensed .dts files. Seems like an issue to me. Rob
