RE: [PATCH 07/15] dt-bindings: clock: Add r8a779g0 CPG Core Clock Definitions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello Krzysztof,

> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski, Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 4:17 PM
> 
> 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.

Thank you very much for your comments. Now I understand the files in include/dt-bindings/
are also the bindings.

> > 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.

I got it. So, I'll change the license from (GPL-2.0 or MIT) to (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause).

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda





[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux PPP]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linmodem]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Kernel for ARM]

  Powered by Linux