Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: clock, reset: rockchip: Add support for rk3562

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 24/02/2025 10:14, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Montag, 24. Februar 2025, 09:47:40 MEZ schrieb Kever Yang:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 2024/12/27 16:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 05:23:09PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote:
>>>> From: Finley Xiao <finley.xiao@rock-chips.com>
>>>>
>>>> Add the dt-bindings header for the rk3562, that gets shared between
>>>> the clock controller and the clock references in the dts.
>>>> Add softreset ID for rk3562.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Finley Xiao <finley.xiao@rock-chips.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Liang Chen <cl@rock-chips.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - rename the file to rockchip,rk3562-cru.h
>>>> - remove CLK_NR_CLKS
>>>> - add new file for reset ID
>>>> - update to use dual license
>>>>
>>>>   .../dt-bindings/clock/rockchip,rk3562-cru.h   | 377 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   .../dt-bindings/reset/rockchip,rk3562-cru.h   | 360 +++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> No, that's not a separate patch. Headers *ALWAYS* go with the bindings
>>> patch.
>> Will fix.
>>>>   2 files changed, 737 insertions(+)
>>>>   create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/clock/rockchip,rk3562-cru.h
>>>>   create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/reset/rockchip,rk3562-cru.h
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/rockchip,rk3562-cru.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/rockchip,rk3562-cru.h
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..ad07ad3a12ad
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/rockchip,rk3562-cru.h
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,377 @@
>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) */
>>> Why not using license requested by checkpatch?
>>
>> The checkpatch does not report error/warning for this license, and this 
>> is the same as many other SoCs.
>>
>> Which license is recommend in the header file?
> 
> I suppose
> 
> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR MIT) */
> 
> According to [0] "GPL-2.0" and "GPL-2.0-only" are equivalent, but I guess
> "GPL-2.0-only" simply makes the "only" part more visible.

No, rather use the one expressed in checkpatch.

Best regards,
Krzysztof