Hi All,
Sorry I didn't posted here earlier, but It seems it's time to explain:
1) My "original" u-boot work is dirty and not good enough for mainline (it works properly, but has a lot of garbage, doesn't use Device Model and so on) This are branches dragonboard, dragonboard-dev etc.
2) I'm in the middle of reworking it into "clean" code. You can see it on dragonboard-for-mainline-rebase-29.11 branch.
As this code adds a new SoC and several drivers, I decided to ask collegue to do pre-review and planned to send RFC somewhere this week so there will be less re-submits.
@Syed: I asked you to wait few days, as I'm rebasing/squashing my for-mainline branch, and doing heavy reworks of core code, so your commits adding one new board would be lost.
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:57:02AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:44:17PM +0530, sk.syed2 wrote:
Hi I took dragonboard 410c source from https://github.com/hallor/u-boot/ and added support for Dragonboard 810 from Intrinsyc(msm8994 soc). Currently it boots to u-boot prompt after launching from little kernel(qcom boot loader). Intend to add more features.
Just wondering should I post a patch here against https://github.com/hallor/u-boot/ for my changes?
First, it should be sent to that tree as there is not currently dragonboard support in mainline.
I hope to change that soon :)
Second (and why I added Mateusz Kulikowski to the emails), I see that on for example https://github.com/hallor/u-boot/blob/dragonboard/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/qcom/pm... code is "borrowed" from LK/spmi and labled as GPL-2.0+ but https://github.com/Caio99BR/lk/blob/master/platform/msm_shared/include/spmi.... which is I beleive the "LK/spmi" in question, that is clearly BSD-3 and you can't just re-license code like that.
I took code from Linux/Little Kernel, as it was quickest way to get it running A lot of it is also already removed - for example spmi looks like that right now: https://github.com/hallor/u-boot/blob/af156ba28b03ea51bc2850cdf3c39aad065539...
As for license rewriting - oops, I have to recheck that. I was sure LK was GPL as well, and mechanically added GPL-2.0+ to all files - shame on me.
Best Regards, Mateusz