[PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: crypto: Convert Atmel AES to yaml

[Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com]

On 2/8/22 16:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On 08/02/2022 15:40, Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com wrote:
>> On 2/8/22 13:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> On 08/02/2022 11:49, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>> Convert Atmel AES documentation to yaml format. With the conversion the
>>>> clock and clock-names properties are made mandatory. The driver returns
>>>> -EINVAL if "aes_clk" is not found, reflect that in the bindings and make
>>>> the clock and clock-names properties mandatory. Update the example to
>>>> better describe how one should define the dt node.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus at microchip.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../crypto/atmel,at91sam9g46-aes.yaml         | 65 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  .../bindings/crypto/atmel-crypto.txt          | 20 ------
>>>>  2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/atmel,at91sam9g46-aes.yaml
>>>>
>>>
>>> I understand that you keep the license GPL-2.0 (not recommended mix)
>>> because of example coming from previous bindings or from DTS (both GPL-2.0)?
>>>
>>
>> The previous bindings did not have a license specified. We have DTS files with
>> these nodes that are either (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) or GPL-2.0-or-later. The drivers
>> are GPL-2.0. I thought to follow the drivers. I see the example in [1] uses
>> (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause). I see the crypto bindings that are converted
>> to yaml are either (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) or GPL-2.0-only. Is there
>> another guideline that I miss?
>>
> 
> Yes, there is. Run checkpatch (your question kinds of point to the fact
> that you did not run it...):
> WARNING: DT binding documents should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR
> BSD-2-Clause)

Right. I usually run checkpatch --strict, but this warning slipped somehow.
Maybe because of the two other false positives, too much noise.
> 
> 
> If your new bindings use copied/derivative description or DTS code which
> is licensed as only GPL-2.0, the bindings itself as derivative work
> might need to stay as GPL-2.0 as well. Unless copyright holders agree to
> re-license this as GPL2-OR-BSD. As representing company, your patch
> might be enough to re-license, but maybe other people contributed. I
> don't know.
> 
> I just wanted to be sure that you use GPL-2.0 in purpose, because
> GPL2-OR-BSD cannot be used.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I have to admit I'm not too familiar with
the contents of each license. Will read them and come back with a follow up.

ta