From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CF5838BC0 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:23:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68D49C433C7; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:23:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1695903790; bh=FhiCLuXE8xs5g1A7GLVUNFyMEugHawIxGqltKFYikQs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=C4LSdgPYPgVEwS6xsCENhOeWsGBpCMYKUdabc/3c0vS1/50rScD+6wB+OtF/r1KdN Z1cAaMCwTV97ZYYwDussm0Y8XhNQL29pqDaCYkkjg/ptMiJ1WjSu65DOFhGq22KTyR AAkZSqOcJH16/b5tgVyhPoYPQy7sYDvadILrgqbQ= Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 14:23:04 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Eliza Balas Cc: Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Derek Kiernan , Dragan Cvetic , Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drivers: misc: adi-axi-tdd: Add TDD engine Message-ID: <2023092835-educator-cardigan-1ae0@gregkh> References: <20230928092804.22612-1-eliza.balas@analog.com> <20230928092804.22612-3-eliza.balas@analog.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230928092804.22612-3-eliza.balas@analog.com> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 12:28:04PM +0300, Eliza Balas wrote: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/misc/adi-axi-tdd.c > @@ -0,0 +1,780 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause) License comment, why is this dual licensed? You are calling gpl-only-marked functions in this driver so attempting to say it is also BSD is quite odd, how are you going to resolve that? Has a lawyer agreed with this licensing? Please get a lawyer to sign off on your next contribution of this with a dual license to ensure that they agree and that you all fully understand the legal issues and complexity of attempting to have dual-licensed Linux kernel code (hint, it's not as simple as you might think...) And document in the changelog _why_ you want this to be dual licensed so that we can all review that as well. thanks, greg k-h