[PATCH V6 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: document Amlogic S4 SoC PLL & peripheral clock controller

[Yu Tu]

On 2023/1/25 8:25, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
> 
> Yu Tu <yu.tu at amlogic.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On 2023/1/19 8:38, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>>>
>>> Yu Tu <yu.tu at 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.
>>>
>>
>> I actually refer to the previous g12a Soc.
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc4/source/include/dt-bindings/clock/g12a-clkc.h
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc4/source/include/dt-bindings/clock/axg-clkc.h
>> [...]
>>
>> So if you think it is not necessary, I will delete the '+' as you
>> suggested. Don't know what you choose?
> 
> Drop the `+`

Okay.

> 
> Kevin
>