[PATCH 02/22] dt-bindings: power: Add power-domain header for RV1126

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 27/07/2022 08:52, Jagan Teki wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 19:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 26/07/2022 15:44, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 at 02:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 23/07/2022 22:43, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>>>> Add power-domain header for RV1126 SoC from description in TRM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Elaine Zhang <zhangqing at rock-chips.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan at edgeble.ai>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  include/dt-bindings/power/rv1126-power.h | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/rv1126-power.h
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/rv1126-power.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/rv1126-power.h
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 000000000000..f15930ff06f7
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/rv1126-power.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>>
>>>> Dual license and a blank line,  please.
>>>
>>> Yes, all rockchip power includes (at least here) are GPL-2.0 what is
>>> the issue with it?
>>
>> The headers are part of bindings and all bindings should be dual
>> licensed, so they can be used in other projects.
>>
>> Of course if copyright holder does not agree to release it on BSD, then
>> it would be fine as exception. Also would be fine from us not to accept
>> such bindings. :)
> 
> I don't hold anything here to use dual-licensing. The only thing I'm
> wondering here is none of the rockchip power includes (which are
> merged) are using dual-licensing they simply have GPL-2.0 which is
> used in BSP.  Let me know what you suggest?

Hm, I think you asked this above and I answered that dual license should
be used. Maybe we misunderstand each other?

Do you include in this header any work which cannot be licensed on BSD
(e.g. is derivative of existing GPL-2 work)?

What other (independent) includes are doing, it's not relevant really.
If they were accepted as single license, then it's a past mistake.

Best regards,
Krzysztof