Re: [PATCH ath-next v3 1/6] dt-bindings: net: wireless: add ath12k wifi device IPQ5424

[Jeff Johnson]

On 3/31/2026 7:42 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 31/03/2026 16:23, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On 3/31/2026 12:24 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 02:09:06AM +0530, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
>>>>  $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/wireless/qcom,ipq5332-wifi.yaml#
>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ properties:
>>>>    compatible:
>>>>      enum:
>>>>        - qcom,ipq5332-wifi
>>>> +      - qcom,ipq5424-wifi
>>>
>>> No, use previous patch.
>>>
>>> I am annoyed that you keep making changes even for such trivialities and
>>> require re-review from the community.  Previous patch was correct. This
>>> one doing whatever you want to do in copyrights is too much. You don't
>>> change copyrights just because you wrote one device model.
>>
>> Krzysztof,
>>
>> FYI here is the guidance I received from Qualcomm legal (links to internal
>> documentation, removed -- I've forwarded the entire e-mail to your Qualcomm
>> mailbox):
> 
> As I explained already more than once, legal can engage in open source
> discussions directly. I am not going to discuss with them via proxies.
> 
>>
>> ... Repos under copyleft license [...] QTI copyright must be added when we
>> make significant changes.
>>
>> ... Repos under friendly license (BSD, Apache, MIT, ...) [...] QTI copyright
>> must be added for any changes, not just significant ones.
>>
>> ... under the regular QUIC to QTI open-source copyright transitioning [...]
>> all QUIC Copyright instances should be replaced with year-less QTI OSS Copyright.
>>
>> I'll follow up with them on this case where there is a dual-license file.
> 
> You nicely removed the quote where they ask to follow what the upstream
> maintainer asks for. So as one of the maintainers I ask not to change
> it, because it is churn and pointless waste of my time.

Although I feel the latest patch correctly represents Qualcomm legal guidance,
I'm not going to insist upon the copyright change.

/jeff