From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:26:33 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 2/2] sunxi-mali-mainline-driver: bump version and add support for building on arm64(aarch64). In-Reply-To: <58c7d88b-dc45-5426-a328-89a58dc005b2@micronovasrl.com> References: <20180822000648.23314-1-giulio.benetti@micronovasrl.com> <20180822000648.23314-3-giulio.benetti@micronovasrl.com> <20180822132959.39640475@windsurf> <58c7d88b-dc45-5426-a328-89a58dc005b2@micronovasrl.com> Message-ID: <20180822212633.0a8a625e@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 20:37:13 +0200, Giulio Benetti wrote: > Also, it would be good to have patches > > adding license information for both of those packages. For the > > mali-blobs, there's a PDF containing the EULA. > > Do you mean like odroid-mali package .mk? > I mean reporting: > SUNXI_MALI_MAINLINE_LICENSE = EULA > SUNXI_MALI_MAINLINE_LICENSE_FILES = EULA for Mali 400MP _AW.pdf > Right? Yes. Make sure "make legal-info" is working after this. > For the kernel driver, I > > didn't see a license file, but I didn't look everywhere. If there is > > none, could you check with Maxime to make sure a license file gets > > added ? > > I'm not an expert of licensing but as stated here: > https://developer.arm.com/products/software/mali-drivers/utgard-kernel > it is distributed under GPLv2 licence the base code, > so the added code should be too. > What do you all think? Yes, of course, it should be under GPLv2, but it would be nice to have a license file in the source code. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com