Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: interconnect: Add Qualcomm SDX65 DT bindings

[Rohit Agarwal]

On 4/13/2022 5:51 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 13/04/2022 14:14, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
> > On 4/13/2022 12:03 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 13/04/2022 08:29, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
> > > > On 4/12/2022 2:52 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > On 12/04/2022 07:07, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
> > > > > > Add interconnect IDs for Qualcomm SDX65 platform.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > (...)
> > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,sdx65.h b/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,sdx65.h
> > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > index 0000000..8d02c79
> > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,sdx65.h
> > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> > > > > Is it possible to license it the same as bindings (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)?
> > > > The qcom related code are marked as GPL 2.0 license
> > > This I see here, unless you meant some other qcom related code?
> > Yes, I meant the other codes as well because most of them I see (for eg.
> > sdx55) have added only GPL 2.0.
> Happens, maybe no one pointed out this. The bindings, including headers
> because these are part of bindings, are expected to have (GPL-2.0 OR
> BSD-2-Clause) license. Just because some bindings or some binding
> headers have GPL-2.0, is not a justification that wrong license should
> be used.

Okay, understood. Thanks for the clarification. Will update this 
immediately.

Thanks,
Rohit.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof