On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 03:36:06PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello Roland, > > On 4/1/19 2:32 PM, Roland Hieber wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:18:10PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > >> Instead of adding missing definitions to the existing at91sam9_ddrsdr.h > >> and adapting the incoming DDRAM initialization code from at91bootstrap, > >> just replace the lightly used existing header with: > >> https://github.com/linux4sam/at91bootstrap/blob/v3.8.12/include/arch/at91_ddrsdrc.h > >> > >> For easier comprehension, the replacement is done in three steps: > >> Here the header is imported. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> .../arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_ddrsdrc.h | 288 ++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 288 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_ddrsdrc.h > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_ddrsdrc.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_ddrsdrc.h > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 000000000000..57d0d8f489c4 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_ddrsdrc.h > >> @@ -0,0 +1,288 @@ > >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-1-Clause > > > > I've told you this in our personal converation before, but I'll happily > > repeat it here for a broader audience: The original GitHub source says > > > > * DISCLAIMER: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ATMEL "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR > > * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF > > * MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE > > * DISCLAIMED. > > > > which additionally disclaims warranty for "NON-INFRINGEMENT", which is > > not in BSD-1-Clause text you added in the previous commit. I regard this > > as a substantive change of the licensing conditions according to the > > SPDX License List Matching Guidelines [s] and rather use the original > > license headers here as long as there is no SPDX license identifier for > > it. > To restate my opinion: > Atmel already disclaims ANY EXPRESS or IMPLIED WARRANTIES, which should > include NON-INFRINGEMENT regardless if whether it was explicitly listed > or not. Ah, good, it seems I misinterpreted your argument earlier. Sorry, so no objections from my side then. - Roland _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
