linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250-xiaomi-pipa: Add initial device tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e1a083eb-c4b7-471c-8829-0631ff1b2829@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 09:02:16 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Luka Panio <lukapanio@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
 Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, "Guilherme G . Piccoli"
 <gpiccoli@...lia.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250-xiaomi-pipa: Add initial
 device tree

On 23/10/2023 08:50, Luka Panio wrote:
>> Did you base your work on these files? This would explain the license,
>> but then please include original copyrights.
> No, but the sm8250.dtsi that I do include has that license. Same as
> all other sm8250 device's dts's so i thought mine should not be
> different?

Including a file does not make your work derivative (at least usually),
so either you based your work on existing file or you created a new
file. If you created a new file, then I would propose to license this
the same as we license bindings, so:
GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause

> 
>> Please do not trim the content that much. How can I know to what you
>> refer here? What was in original code? 0x24?
> Sorry, indeed I did mean 0x34, but I am not really sure what I
> can/should do about that, in the and only reason for it is to make
> bootloader happy, should i mention that as a comment?

No, I just wanted to be sure you used valid value. Few more boards use
decimal 34.

Best regards,
Krzysztof