Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip-emmc-phy: Convert to dtschema

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 02:52:46PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/06/2024 12:33, Johan Jonker wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 6/13/24 12:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 13/06/2024 11:44, Johan Jonker wrote:
> >>>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Add ack request from phy maintainer here.
> >>
> > 
> >> Why? What do you mean for that? Why phy maintainer needs to ack patches
> >> he is going to take?
> > 
> > See my text below:
> > From my past converting phy documents experience asking was needed to smooths things up ...
> > Let me know if things have improved.
> > 
> > grf.yaml can be busy at times. Let Heiko take care of the merge order.
> > Ask for an ack from the phy maintainers in your commit message below a "---"
> > 
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Changes in v3:
> >>>>     - fix `reg` in example being too long
> >>>>
> >>>> Tested against `rockchip/rk3399-firefly.dtb`, `rockchip/rk3399-orangepi.dtb`
> >>>> and `rockchip/rk3399-pinebook-pro.dtb`.
> >>>>
> >>>>  .../bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml       | 79 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>  .../bindings/phy/rockchip-emmc-phy.txt        | 43 ----------
> >>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip/grf.yaml |  2 +-
> >>>>  3 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> >>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml
> >>>>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-emmc-phy.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml
> >>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>> index 000000000000..85d74b343991
> >>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml
> >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
> >>>
> >>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> >>>
> >>> You are converting an existing document, so GPL 2 only.
> >>
> > 
> >> Which copyrightable part was copied? This comment is not correct in
> >> general, because conversions are dual-licensed (there are exceptions,
> >> but that's the generic rule).
> > 
> > Was told to do so in the past by the maintainers(Rob??) for text 
> > documents conversions.(Can't find exactly were in lore, must be in one my first conversion patches)
> > If someone was submitting as GPL2 long time ago then the derived/converted work still hold the same license.
> > Let me know if the consensus has changed.
> 
> Consensus did not change but I am no sure if you got it right. It was
> about copied copyrightable text. Which part was copied here?

It is derived from the text binding, so strictly speaking that's derived 
work. Are descriptions (because that's really all we take) enough to be 
copyrightable? That's another question...

I don't know so I err on the side of keep GPL-2.0-only *only*.

Will anyone ever care? Not likely.

Rob