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, 5 Dec 2023 12:46:13 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>,
        Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, qiujingbao.dlmu@...il.com,
        dlan@...too.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: clock: sophgo: Add CV1800 bindings

On 05/12/2023 12:24, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
>>
>> On 05/12/2023 10:43, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
>>> Add definition for the clock controller of the CV1800 series SoC.
>>>
>>
>> If there is going to be resend:
>>
>> A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings". The
>> "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings.
>>
> 
> OK, thanks.
> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>
>>> Link: https://github.com/milkv-duo/duo-files/blob/main/hardware/CV1800B/CV1800B-CV1801B-Preliminary-Datasheet-full-en.pdf
>>> ---
>>
>>
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/sophgo,cv1800.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/sophgo,cv1800.h
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..6a9897b34978
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/sophgo,cv1800.h
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>
>> Why not dual-license? Checkpatch complains about this, so are you sure
>> you run it?
>>
> 
> Yes, I have run it. It seems I misunderstood the warning message.
> It only tells me it should be (GPL-2.0-only OR .*). And I think
> GPL-2.0 is ok. Thanks for your explanation, I will fix this soon.

GPL-2.0 still does not have OR.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ