[PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: power: Add Actions Semi S900 SPS
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <hidden>
Date: 2018-06-27 15:11:05
Also in:
linux-devicetree, lkml
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 03:57:13PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:11:17PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..f1aaf761112b --- /dev/null +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+checkpatch.pl warns about this line due to not using /* ... */ syntax for headers. I could fix that up on my own, but it made me realize that you are licensing this file under GPL-2.0+ only, whereas the .dts[i] is supposed to be dual-licensed. Can you please give your consent to make this /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */You can change the license to GPL-2.0+ OR MIT.quoted
like my S500 and S700 bindings? Question: Should it still be GPL-2.0+ or the new GPL-2.0-or-later?I think GPL-2.0+ is fine.So... when I saw this I did wonder why one would knowly choose to use a deprecated license identifier (https://spdx.org/licenses/ ). However running `git diff v4.17..v4.18-rc1` through some filters does indicate that GPL-2.0+ is the more popular choice by 256 to 0! Doesn't mean you couldn't break the mould though ;-).
I did grep through the source and hit with same numbers ;-) But I was not sure whether to break the mould or not, so chose the safest path :) Since you already gave the green signal, I think we can move to new style identifier. Thanks, Mani
Daniel.