linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip-emmc-phy: Convert to dtschema

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: <58e85008-a268-4555-bafb-f948ade16a63@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:52:46 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...dex.com>,
 Shresth Prasad <shresthprasad7@...il.com>, vkoul@...nel.org,
 kishon@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 heiko@...ech.de, sebastian.reichel@...labora.com, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
 cristian.ciocaltea@...labora.com, andy.yan@...k-chips.com
Cc: linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
 javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip-emmc-phy: Convert to
 dtschema

On 13/06/2024 12:33, Johan Jonker wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/13/24 12:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 13/06/2024 11:44, Johan Jonker wrote:
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Add ack request from phy maintainer here.
>>
> 
>> Why? What do you mean for that? Why phy maintainer needs to ack patches
>> he is going to take?
> 
> See my text below:
> From my past converting phy documents experience asking was needed to smooths things up ...
> Let me know if things have improved.
> 
> grf.yaml can be busy at times. Let Heiko take care of the merge order.
> Ask for an ack from the phy maintainers in your commit message below a "---"
> 
>>
>>>
>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>>     - fix `reg` in example being too long
>>>>
>>>> Tested against `rockchip/rk3399-firefly.dtb`, `rockchip/rk3399-orangepi.dtb`
>>>> and `rockchip/rk3399-pinebook-pro.dtb`.
>>>>
>>>>  .../bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml       | 79 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  .../bindings/phy/rockchip-emmc-phy.txt        | 43 ----------
>>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip/grf.yaml |  2 +-
>>>>  3 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml
>>>>  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-emmc-phy.txt
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..85d74b343991
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,emmc-phy.yaml
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
>>>
>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>
>>> You are converting an existing document, so GPL 2 only.
>>
> 
>> Which copyrightable part was copied? This comment is not correct in
>> general, because conversions are dual-licensed (there are exceptions,
>> but that's the generic rule).
> 
> Was told to do so in the past by the maintainers(Rob??) for text documents conversions.(Can't find exactly were in lore, must be in one my first conversion patches)
> If someone was submitting as GPL2 long time ago then the derived/converted work still hold the same license.
> Let me know if the consensus has changed.

Consensus did not change but I am no sure if you got it right. It was
about copied copyrightable text. Which part was copied here?

I think there is none, so just like with almost all conversions, please
use dual license.

Best regards,
Krzysztof