Re: [PATCH 06/12] dt-bindings: clk: sunxi-ng: add V853 CCU clock/reset

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 13/01/2025 09:45, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 4:21 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 13/01/2025 09:06, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 9:56 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/01/2025 13:39, Andras Szemzo wrote:
>>>>> As the device tree needs the clock/reset indices, add them to DT binding
>>>>> headers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andras Szemzo <szemzo.andras@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> That's never a separate commit from the binding.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/sun8i-v853-r-ccu.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
>>>>> +/* Copyright(c) 2020 - 2023 Allwinner Technology Co.,Ltd. All rights reserved.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2023 rengaomin@allwinnertech.com
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_CLK_SUN8I_V85X_R_CCU_H_
>>>>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_CLK_SUN8I_V85X_R_CCU_H_
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define CLK_R_TWD            0
>>>>> +#define CLK_R_PPU            1
>>>>> +#define CLK_R_RTC            2
>>>>> +#define CLK_R_CPUCFG         3
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define CLK_R_MAX_NO         (CLK_R_CPUCFG + 1)
>>>>
>>>> Nope, drop. Not a binding.
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/reset/sun8i-v853-ccu.h b/include/dt-bindings/reset/sun8i-v853-ccu.h
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 000000000000..89d94fcbdb55
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/reset/sun8i-v853-ccu.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
>>>>
>>>> Odd license. Did you copy the file with such license from the downstream?
>>>
>>> AFAIK all the existing sunxi clock / reset binding header files are
>>> dual licensed. OOTH all the YAML files are GPL 2.0 only.
>>>
>>> IIRC we started out GPL 2.0 only, but then figured that the header files
>>> couldn't be shared with non-GPL projects, so we changed those to dual
>>> license.
>>>
>>> Hope that explains the current situation. Relicensing the whole lot
>>> to just MIT or BSD is probably doable.
>> That's not what the comment is about. Dual license, as expressed by
>> submitting bindings/patches and enforced by checkpatch are expected. But
>> not GPLv3, GPLv4 and GPLv10.
> 
> I take back my statement. It seems we have a lot of GPLv2 or later going on.

There are a lot of bugs, so we can add them as well?

> 
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun20i-d1-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier:
> (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun20i-d1-r-ccu.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-a100-ccu.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-a100-r-ccu.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-h6-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier:
> (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-h6-r-ccu.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-h616-ccu.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun5i-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier:
> GPL-2.0-or-later */
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun6i-rtc.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier:
> (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun8i-de2.h: * SPDX-License-Identifier:
> (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> include/dt-bindings/clock/sun8i-tcon-top.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier:
> (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/clock/suniv-ccu-f1c100s.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> include/dt-bindings/reset/sun20i-d1-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier:
> (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/reset/sun20i-d1-r-ccu.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-a100-ccu.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-a100-r-ccu.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-h6-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier:
> (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-h6-r-ccu.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-h616-ccu.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> include/dt-bindings/reset/sun5i-ccu.h:/* SPDX-License-Identifier:
> GPL-2.0-or-later */
> include/dt-bindings/reset/sun8i-de2.h: * SPDX-License-Identifier:
> (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> include/dt-bindings/reset/suniv-ccu-f1c100s.h:/*
> SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> 
> Is there a requirement that new files have to be GPL 2.0 only, not
> GPL 2.0 or later?

I think that's obvious preference and brought to the list multiple times
already. And that's easy to justify reversing the question: why would
GPLv4 be okay here? If you can find the reason, sure we can go with
2.0+. If you cannot find the reason, well, it's obvious, right?

Best regards,
Krzysztof