linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Add initial Keem Bay SoC / Board support

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]

Date:   Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:40:28 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        Paul Murphy <paul.j.murphy@...el.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Add initial Keem Bay SoC / Board support

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:50 PM Daniele Alessandrelli
<daniele.alessandrelli@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch-set adds initial support for a new Intel Movidius SoC code-named
> Keem Bay. The SoC couples an ARM Cortex A53 CPU with an Intel Movidius VPU.
>
> This initial patch-set enables only the minimal set of components required
> to make the Keem Bay EVM board boot into initramfs.
>
> Changes from v1 to v2:
> * Moved keembay-scmi-mailbox driver to a separate patchset
> * Removed Keem Bay SCMI mailbox and SCMI node from Keem Bay SoC device tree

This all looks basically ok, but I noticed that the DT bindings ands
DTS files all have a
"GPL-2.0-only" tag. Usually we make those dual-licensed in order to
make it easier
to distribute them with a non-GPL bootloader and synchronize them between
projects.

Do you know if the GPL-2.0-only part was picked intentionally, or if it can
be changed to dual-licensed?

      Arnd