Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] misc: nxp-sr1xx: UWB driver support for sr1xx series chip

[Manjunatha Venkatesh <manjunatha.venkatesh@nxp.com>]

On 11/30/2022 12:57 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Caution: EXT Email
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 09:10:08AM +0530, Manjunatha Venkatesh wrote:
>> On 9/14/2022 8:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Note, originally you all were "rushed" to get this accepted, and now
> this took 2 1/2 months to respond back to a code review?  Something is
> wrong here, when responding so late, almost all context is lost :(

Sorry for the delayed response,further we will make sure address the 
review comments ASAP.

>
>>> Caution: EXT Email
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 07:59:44PM +0530, Manjunatha Venkatesh wrote:
>>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/nxp-sr1xx.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,794 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause)
>>> Please no.  If you really want to dual-license your Linux kernel code,
>>> that's fine, but I will insist that you get a signed-off-by from your
>>> corporate lawyer so that I know that they agree with this and are
>>> willing to handle all of the complex issues that this entails as it will
>>> require work on their side over time.
>>>
>>> If that's not worth bothering your lawyers over, please just stick with
>>> GPL as the only license.
>> Dual-license is signed-off by NXP corporate lawyer.
> We need a signed-off-by on the patch itself.
As part of Version6 patch submission signed-off by NXP corporate lawyer 
updated
>> Though, we would like to understand what complex issues which require
>> work over the time?
> I am not a lawyer and can not advise you of this, please work with yours
> to set into place the requirements you will have to keep this working
> properly.  Note, it is not trivial, and will require work on your end.
>
> I will push back again, and ask "Why?"  Why do you want this dual
> licensed?  What is driving that requirement and what will having it
> licensed like this enable you to do that having it just under GPL-2.0
> will not?

Our corporate lawyer suggested to use this dual license for NXP UWB product.

>>>> +#define SR1XX_SET_PWR _IOW(SR1XX_MAGIC, 0x01, long)
>>>> +#define SR1XX_SET_FWD _IOW(SR1XX_MAGIC, 0x02, long)
>>> You can't stick ioctl command definitions in a .c file that userspace
>>> never sees.  How are your userspace tools supposed to know what the
>>> ioctl is and how it is defined?
>> We will move ioctl command definitions into user space header file as part
>> of our next patch submission.
>>> How was this ever tested and where is your userspace code that interacts
>>> with this code?
>> We will share the corresponding user space code soon,meanwhile can you
>> please suggest how to share this user space code?
> You all have ways of posting code publicly :)

NXP UWB user space code available at below shared path.

https://github.com/NXP/uwb-driver-testapp

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h