Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
To:     Yu Tu <yu.tu@amlogic.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
        Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Cc:     "kelvin . zhang" <Kelvin.Zhang@amlogic.com>,
        "qi . duan" <qi.duan@amlogic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: document Amlogic S4 SoC PLL
 & peripheral clock controller
In-Reply-To: <7c0133a2-ea4d-645e-3df2-2bb832bbd498@amlogic.com>
References: <20230116074214.2326-1-yu.tu@amlogic.com>
 <20230116074214.2326-2-yu.tu@amlogic.com>
 <02b6b3a6-e2ad-8cbc-fa15-fbd2db6ada64@linaro.org>
 <7c0133a2-ea4d-645e-3df2-2bb832bbd498@amlogic.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:38:52 -0800
Message-ID: <7hwn5jqrxf.fsf@baylibre.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Yu Tu <yu.tu@amlogic.com> writes:

> On 2023/1/16 16:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

[...]

>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-peripherals-clkc.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-peripherals-clkc.h
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..bbec5094d5c3
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-peripherals-clkc.h
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
>> 
>> Unusual license... are you sure to license the bindings under GPLv4 or
>> GPLv5? Fine by me.
>> 
>
> Yes.

The rest of the bindings for Amlogic SoCs are GPL-2.0 (without the '+').
Adding the dual-license for MIT seems fine, but adding the '+' is
curious.

It would be helpful if you could please explain why you'd like these
bindings to be licensed differently than the rest of the SoC family.

Kevin