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

[Shresth Prasad <shresthprasad7@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 1:26 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> 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

Just to be safe I'll change the license to GPL-2.0-only then.
Thank you everyone for the feedback, I'll fix everything and resend the patch.

Regards,
Shresth