On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:58 PM Maxime Ripard [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 06:15:45PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:

quoted

Adopt the SPDX license identifier headers to ease license
compliance management on Allwinner A64 dts(i) files.

While the text specifies "of the GPL or the X11 license"
but the actual license text matches the MIT license as
specified at [0]

[0] https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html

Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>
---
 .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-bananapi-m64.dts | 39 +------------------
 .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-nanopi-a64.dts   | 39 +------------------
 .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-olinuxino.dts    | 39 +------------------
 .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-orangepi-win.dts | 39 +------------------
 .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-pine64-plus.dts  | 39 +------------------
 .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-pine64.dts  | 39 +------------------
 .../allwinner/sun50i-a64-sopine-baseboard.dts | 39 +------------------
 .../boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-sopine.dtsi | 39 +------------------
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi | 39 +------------------
 9 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 342 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-bananapi-m64.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-bananapi-m64.dts
index 208373efee49..efdd84c362b0 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-bananapi-m64.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64-bananapi-m64.dts

@@ -1,43 +1,6 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)

You say that this is a GPL2 only license

quoted

 /*
  * Copyright (c) 2016 ARM Ltd.
- *
- * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
- * of the GPL or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
- * licensing only applies to this file, and not this project as a
- * whole.
- *
- *  a) This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
- *     modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
- *     published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
- *     License, or (at your option) any later version.

While this is GPL2 or later.

Yes, this is where I was confused with compared to existing
architectures. It seems like it is a call from author of the file or
make GPL-2.0 for generic purpose [1], not really sure.

Also, I'm not sure why we need 25 patches to do that. Can't you just
send one (there's no even need to separate arm and arm64, since we
will do only a single PR from now as opposed to what we were doing
before).

Just to make a clear conversion possible with individual SoC + boards
files, I did based on existing arch's does. np, if require I can send
it in single patch.

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10963113/

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel