| Message ID | 20200831210232.28052-1-post@lespocky.de |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | leds: pwm: Make automatic labels work | expand |
Hi Alexander, Thanks for the v2. On 8/31/20 11:02 PM, Alexander Dahl wrote: > Hei hei, > > for leds-gpio you can use the properties 'function' and 'color' in the > devicetree node and omit 'label', the label is constructed > automatically. This is a common feature supposed to be working for all > LED drivers. However it did not yet work for the 'leds-pwm' driver. > This series fixes the driver and takes the opportunity to update the > dt-bindings accordingly. > > v1: based on v5.9-rc2, backport on v5.4.59 tested and working > > v2: based on v5.9-rc3, added the dt-bindings update patch > > Greets > Alex > > Alexander Dahl (2): > leds: pwm: Allow automatic labels for DT based devices > dt-bindings: leds: Convert pwm to yaml > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt | 50 ----------- > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml | 85 +++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 9 +- > 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml > For both patches: Acked-by: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>
Hi Jacek, Am Dienstag, 1. September 2020, 23:08:09 CEST schrieb Jacek Anaszewski: > Hi Alexander, > > Thanks for the v2. > > On 8/31/20 11:02 PM, Alexander Dahl wrote: > > Hei hei, > > > > for leds-gpio you can use the properties 'function' and 'color' in the > > devicetree node and omit 'label', the label is constructed > > automatically. This is a common feature supposed to be working for all > > LED drivers. However it did not yet work for the 'leds-pwm' driver. > > This series fixes the driver and takes the opportunity to update the > > dt-bindings accordingly. > > > > v1: based on v5.9-rc2, backport on v5.4.59 tested and working > > > > v2: based on v5.9-rc3, added the dt-bindings update patch > > > > Greets > > Alex > > > > Alexander Dahl (2): > > leds: pwm: Allow automatic labels for DT based devices > > dt-bindings: leds: Convert pwm to yaml > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt | 50 ----------- > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml | 85 +++++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 9 +- > > 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml > > For both patches: > > Acked-by: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com> I'd like to make a v3 and change the license of the .yaml file to "(GPL-2.0- only OR BSD-2-Clause)" as suggested by checkpatch and [1]. Can I keep your Acked-by for that? Besides: those suggestions are obviously valid for new bindings. What about old bindings (.txt), which had no explicit SPDX tag or license note before? What license would apply there? Is the .yaml file technically new, when it was mostly just converted from .txt? Greets Alex [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.html
Hi Alexander, On 9/4/20 9:53 AM, Alexander Dahl wrote: > Hi Jacek, > > Am Dienstag, 1. September 2020, 23:08:09 CEST schrieb Jacek Anaszewski: >> Hi Alexander, >> >> Thanks for the v2. >> >> On 8/31/20 11:02 PM, Alexander Dahl wrote: >>> Hei hei, >>> >>> for leds-gpio you can use the properties 'function' and 'color' in the >>> devicetree node and omit 'label', the label is constructed >>> automatically. This is a common feature supposed to be working for all >>> LED drivers. However it did not yet work for the 'leds-pwm' driver. >>> This series fixes the driver and takes the opportunity to update the >>> dt-bindings accordingly. >>> >>> v1: based on v5.9-rc2, backport on v5.4.59 tested and working >>> >>> v2: based on v5.9-rc3, added the dt-bindings update patch >>> >>> Greets >>> Alex >>> >>> Alexander Dahl (2): >>> leds: pwm: Allow automatic labels for DT based devices >>> dt-bindings: leds: Convert pwm to yaml >>> >>> .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt | 50 ----------- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml | 85 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 9 +- >>> 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) >>> delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml >> >> For both patches: >> >> Acked-by: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com> > > I'd like to make a v3 and change the license of the .yaml file to "(GPL-2.0- > only OR BSD-2-Clause)" as suggested by checkpatch and [1]. Can I keep your > Acked-by for that? Go ahead. > Besides: those suggestions are obviously valid for new bindings. What about > old bindings (.txt), which had no explicit SPDX tag or license note before? > What license would apply there? Is the .yaml file technically new, when it > was mostly just converted from .txt? I don't know what was the rationale behind adding license to DT bindings, probably Rob will be able to share some details. Possibly the fact that DT examples can be now compile-tested makes some difference here.
Hi! > > > for leds-gpio you can use the properties 'function' and 'color' in the > > > devicetree node and omit 'label', the label is constructed > > > automatically. This is a common feature supposed to be working for all > > > LED drivers. However it did not yet work for the 'leds-pwm' driver. > > > This series fixes the driver and takes the opportunity to update the > > > dt-bindings accordingly. > > > > > > v1: based on v5.9-rc2, backport on v5.4.59 tested and working > > > > > > v2: based on v5.9-rc3, added the dt-bindings update patch > > > > > > Greets > > > Alex > > > > > > Alexander Dahl (2): > > > leds: pwm: Allow automatic labels for DT based devices > > > dt-bindings: leds: Convert pwm to yaml > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt | 50 ----------- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml | 85 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 9 +- > > > 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > > delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml > > > > For both patches: > > > > Acked-by: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com> > > I'd like to make a v3 and change the license of the .yaml file to "(GPL-2.0- > only OR BSD-2-Clause)" as suggested by checkpatch and [1]. Can I keep your > Acked-by for that? > > Besides: those suggestions are obviously valid for new bindings. What about > old bindings (.txt), which had no explicit SPDX tag or license note before? > What license would apply there? Is the .yaml file technically new, when it > was mostly just converted from .txt? If it is based on previous .txt binding, you have to respect previous author's license. That probably means GPL-2.0 only. Alternatively, you can contact original author(s) to get permission to relicense under (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause). Best regards, Pavel
Hello Pavel, Am Mittwoch, 9. September 2020, 11:00:33 CEST schrieb Pavel Machek: > Hi! > > > > > for leds-gpio you can use the properties 'function' and 'color' in the > > > > devicetree node and omit 'label', the label is constructed > > > > automatically. This is a common feature supposed to be working for > > > > all > > > > LED drivers. However it did not yet work for the 'leds-pwm' driver. > > > > This series fixes the driver and takes the opportunity to update the > > > > dt-bindings accordingly. > > > > > > > > v1: based on v5.9-rc2, backport on v5.4.59 tested and working > > > > > > > > v2: based on v5.9-rc3, added the dt-bindings update patch > > > > > > > > Greets > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > Alexander Dahl (2): > > > > leds: pwm: Allow automatic labels for DT based devices > > > > dt-bindings: leds: Convert pwm to yaml > > > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt | 50 ----------- > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml | 85 > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 9 +- > > > > 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > > > delete mode 100644 > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.txt > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/leds-pwm.yaml > > > > > > For both patches: > > > > > > Acked-by: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com> > > > > I'd like to make a v3 and change the license of the .yaml file to > > "(GPL-2.0- only OR BSD-2-Clause)" as suggested by checkpatch and [1]. > > Can I keep your Acked-by for that? > > > > Besides: those suggestions are obviously valid for new bindings. What > > about old bindings (.txt), which had no explicit SPDX tag or license note > > before? What license would apply there? Is the .yaml file technically > > new, when it was mostly just converted from .txt? > > If it is based on previous .txt binding, you have to respect previous > author's license. That probably means GPL-2.0 only. Probably? > Alternatively, you can contact original author(s) to get permission to > relicense under (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause). Judging from your feedback on v3, there will be a v4 anyways, so I contacted Peter Ujfalusi, who added the original .txt binding back in 2012 (merged in 2013). Thanks for your feedback Alex
Hi! > > > Besides: those suggestions are obviously valid for new bindings. What > > > about old bindings (.txt), which had no explicit SPDX tag or license note > > > before? What license would apply there? Is the .yaml file technically > > > new, when it was mostly just converted from .txt? > > > > If it is based on previous .txt binding, you have to respect previous > > author's license. That probably means GPL-2.0 only. > > Probably? I have not checked exact licensing situation of that text, have not decided if it was copyrightable in the first place, and am not a lawyer. So... probably :-). Best regards, Pavel