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

[Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com]

On 2/8/22 17:27, Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> 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.
> 

Did some documentation work, and yes, we can use the recommended bindings
license: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause). Will resubmit. Thanks, Krzysztof!

ta