Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Dec 2022 19:39:52 +0530 | Subject | Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] misc: nxp-sr1xx: UWB driver support for sr1xx series chip | From | Manjunatha Venkatesh <> |
| |
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
| |