[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bbfd859e-b8fb-d69f-887b-4a3d82bb0437@nxp.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 19:39:52 +0530
From: Manjunatha Venkatesh <manjunatha.venkatesh@....com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, will@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
robh+dt@...nel.org, mb@...htnvm.io, ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com,
arnd@...db.d, mst@...hat.com, javier@...igon.com,
mikelley@...rosoft.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
sunilmut@...rosoft.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
ashish.deshpande@....com, rvmanjumce@...il.com
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] misc: nxp-sr1xx: UWB driver support for
sr1xx series chip
On 11/30/2022 12:57 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Caution: EXT Email
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 09:10:08AM +0530, Manjunatha Venkatesh wrote:
>> On 9/14/2022 8:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Note, originally you all were "rushed" to get this accepted, and now
> this took 2 1/2 months to respond back to a code review? Something is
> wrong here, when responding so late, almost all context is lost :(
Sorry for the delayed response,further we will make sure address the
review comments ASAP.
>
>>> Caution: EXT Email
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 07:59:44PM +0530, Manjunatha Venkatesh wrote:
>>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/nxp-sr1xx.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,794 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause)
>>> Please no. If you really want to dual-license your Linux kernel code,
>>> that's fine, but I will insist that you get a signed-off-by from your
>>> corporate lawyer so that I know that they agree with this and are
>>> willing to handle all of the complex issues that this entails as it will
>>> require work on their side over time.
>>>
>>> If that's not worth bothering your lawyers over, please just stick with
>>> GPL as the only license.
>> Dual-license is signed-off by NXP corporate lawyer.
> We need a signed-off-by on the patch itself.
As part of Version6 patch submission signed-off by NXP corporate lawyer
updated
>> Though, we would like to understand what complex issues which require
>> work over the time?
> I am not a lawyer and can not advise you of this, please work with yours
> to set into place the requirements you will have to keep this working
> properly. Note, it is not trivial, and will require work on your end.
>
> I will push back again, and ask "Why?" Why do you want this dual
> licensed? What is driving that requirement and what will having it
> licensed like this enable you to do that having it just under GPL-2.0
> will not?
Our corporate lawyer suggested to use this dual license for NXP UWB product.
>>>> +#define SR1XX_SET_PWR _IOW(SR1XX_MAGIC, 0x01, long)
>>>> +#define SR1XX_SET_FWD _IOW(SR1XX_MAGIC, 0x02, long)
>>> You can't stick ioctl command definitions in a .c file that userspace
>>> never sees. How are your userspace tools supposed to know what the
>>> ioctl is and how it is defined?
>> We will move ioctl command definitions into user space header file as part
>> of our next patch submission.
>>> How was this ever tested and where is your userspace code that interacts
>>> with this code?
>> We will share the corresponding user space code soon,meanwhile can you
>> please suggest how to share this user space code?
> You all have ways of posting code publicly :)
NXP UWB user space code available at below shared path.
https://github.com/NXP/uwb-driver-testapp
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists