On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 09:54:55AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alper, > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 09:01, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiya...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On 12/10/2020 06:34, Simon Glass wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 14:40, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiya...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Found this by comparing it to the coreboot driver, a form of this call > > >> was introduced there in their commit b9a7877568cf ("rockchip/*: refactor > > >> edp driver"). This is copy-pasted from U-Boot's link_train_cr() slightly > > >> above it. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiya...@gmail.com> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > Simon, I noticed the coreboot driver is GPL-2.0-only, but the U-Boot > > driver is GPL-2.0+, is that a problem for this patch? > > > > They also seem to be almost the same especially in their earlier > > revisions (even had the same typos in some comments). It could be good > > to sync the two drivers to pick improvements from it e.g. support for > > rk3399 (though there's an RFC series for that [1]), but the license > > difference makes it difficult. Could the coreboot parts be relicensed to > > GPL-2.0+ by Google and/or Rockchip? Alternatively, is it OK to change > > the U-Boot one to GPL-2.0-only to sync things from coreboot? > > I think it is OK to change the file to GPL2. I'm not sure if changing > coreboot parts to 2.0+ is an option. I believe the use of 2+ in U-Boot > is for fairly narrow reasons, but I'm not sure if that is documented > anywhere. > > +Tom Rini might have a comment
Ugh. In so far as anything can be re-licensed, who did it all originally? I suspect coreboot isn't interested in 2.0+ but we can do 2.0-only. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature