On 22/04/2022 07:32, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > Hello Krzysztof, > >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski, Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 4:49 PM >> >> On 20/04/2022 10:42, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: >>> Add all Clock Pulse Generator Core Clock Outputs for the Renesas >>> R-Car V4H (R8A779G0) SoC. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> include/dt-bindings/clock/r8a779g0-cpg-mssr.h | 87 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 87 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/clock/r8a779g0-cpg-mssr.h >>> >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/r8a779g0-cpg-mssr.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/r8a779g0-cpg-mssr.h >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..07a94cf45581 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/r8a779g0-cpg-mssr.h >>> @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 or MIT) */ >> >> Any reason why not licensing it the same as bindings document >> (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)? The same applies to patch 5. >> >> MIT and BSD-2-clause are almost the same, AFAIR, so let's stick to one >> (BSD-2-clause) for consistency? > > Since r8a779g0.dtsi (which uses this) is under (GPL-2.0 or MIT), I use it here. > Also, r8a779g0.dtsi includes dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h and > the arm-gic.h is under (GPL-2.0 or MIT). So, using it is better, IIUC. This would mean we want to license the bindings the same as we license the DTS. It's not the case. For the bindings we have the strong preference - GPL-2.0 or BSD-2-clause. For the DTS - not that much, just recommendation, I think. > In other words, r8a779g0.dtsi doesn't include any the bindings document > so that there is not needed to use the same license, I think. > # I'm not a lawyer though... If you would like to follow your recommendation, you should license also schema as MIT, because your DTS uses it as well (as a derivative work). Anyway MIT and BSD-2-c are very similar, so there is no much difference here. Best regards, Krzysztof
