Message ID | 20200708175020.194436-1-daniele.alessandrelli@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Add initial Keem Bay SoC / Board support | expand |
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:50 PM Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@linux.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
On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 14:40 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:50 PM Daniele Alessandrelli > <daniele.alessandrelli@linux.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? Thanks for reviewing the patchset. I'll change those files to dual- licensed and re-submit.