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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>]

On 08/02/2022 15:40, Tudor.Ambarus@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@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)


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.

Best regards,
Krzysztof