Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:29:36 +0100 | From | neil.armstrong@linaro ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/10] arm64: dts: qcom: Add pm8010 pmic dtsi |
| |
On 18/11/2022 15:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 18/11/2022 15:58, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> On 17/11/2022 13:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 16/11/2022 11:31, Abel Vesa wrote: >>>> From: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> Add nodes for pm8010 in separate dtsi file. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8010.dtsi | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8010.dtsi >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8010.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8010.dtsi >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 000000000000..0ea641e12209 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm8010.dtsi >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ >>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause >>> >>> Any reason why this is licensed BSD-3 clause? It's not a recommended >>> license (2 clause is). Same for other patches. >> >> Probably a bad copy-paste from other existing files. >> >> While checking, the majority of arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pm*.dtsi uses BSD-3-Clause >> so it seems this was done for quite a while now. > > If it is derivative work (of upstrea, downstream), then you might have > to keep BSD-3. But if not, how about changing it to BSD-2?
It's definitely a derivative work from upstream pm*.dtsi files with BSD-3-Clause licence.
Neil
> > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
| |