From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manivannan Sadhasivam Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: power: Add Actions Semi S900 SPS Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 20:40:52 +0530 Message-ID: <20180627151052.GA24330@mani> References: <20180411164036.8046-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180411164036.8046-2-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20180626164117.GA5241@Mani-XPS-13-9360> <20180627145713.uao2gr5kknk2cypk@holly.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180627145713.uao2gr5kknk2cypk@holly.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Thompson Cc: Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= , robh+dt@kernel.org, liuwei@actions-semi.com, 96boards@ucrobotics.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, hzhang@ucrobotics.com, bdong@ucrobotics.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, manivannanece23@gmail.com, Jeff Chen , "Thomas C. Liau" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 03:57:13PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:11:17PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..f1aaf761112b > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > > > > > checkpatch.pl warns about this line due to not using /* ... */ syntax > > > for headers. I could fix that up on my own, but it made me realize that > > > you are licensing this file under GPL-2.0+ only, whereas the .dts[i] is > > > supposed to be dual-licensed. > > > > > > Can you please give your consent to make this > > > > > > /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ > > > > > > > You can change the license to GPL-2.0+ OR MIT. > > > > > like my S500 and S700 bindings? > > > > > > Question: Should it still be GPL-2.0+ or the new GPL-2.0-or-later? > > > > > > > I think GPL-2.0+ is fine. > > So... when I saw this I did wonder why one would knowly choose to use a > deprecated license identifier (https://spdx.org/licenses/ ). > > However running `git diff v4.17..v4.18-rc1` through some filters does > indicate that GPL-2.0+ is the more popular choice by 256 to 0! Doesn't > mean you couldn't break the mould though ;-). > I did grep through the source and hit with same numbers ;-) But I was not sure whether to break the mould or not, so chose the safest path :) Since you already gave the green signal, I think we can move to new style identifier. Thanks, Mani > > Daniel.