[INQUIRY] License compliance audit for MediaTek mt6897 drivers on TECNO devices

[isus]

Dear Linux Kernel Developers and Maintainers,
I am conducting an audit of the kernel modules shipped with the TECNO
LJ9 (MediaTek mt6897 SoC, kernel 6.1.145-android14) device. My
findings indicate several potential issues regarding GPL compliance
and source code transparency.
Several modules included in the vendor tree lack mandatory metadata
(Author/Description) and present ambiguous licensing patterns.
Specifically:
Lack of identification: Modules such as 6lowpan.ko, clk-bringup.ko,
and various clk-mt6897-* drivers do not provide author or description
information, making it impossible for the community to verify the
origin of this code.
License/Implementation mismatch: Modules claiming Dual BSD/GPL or GPL
status show heavy usage of vendor-specific calls (__arm_smccc_smc,
__arm_smccc_hvc) to interact with closed-source firmware components. I
am concerned about the potential inclusion of derivative works that
might not adhere to the upstream GPL requirements.
Vendor transparency: Many of these drivers appear to be
downstream-only, heavily modified versions of generic drivers, yet
they lack the required GPL headers and proper attribution for the
derivative work.
I request clarification on the availability of the full, buildable
source code for these modules. Are these drivers intended to be
upstreamed, or is this another case of vendor non-compliance?
Logs of the module symbols and license headers are attached below for reference.

Links:
system_dlkm_full_device_audit.txt:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F8nit5uMagEsnV64UUGf2JvYCQZaFPS3/view?usp=drivesdk

vendor_dlkm_full_device_audit.txt:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/148vUnwqkCnwXpSdnyCnxZdcrZkpDR16B/view?usp=drivesdk

vendor_boot_full_device_audit.txt:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-uy_ok0LNFBnQzXltaGIIUVHKOMLX5F2/view?usp=drivesdk

Best regards,
isus203

«I must clarify that I am not a professional kernel developer, but
rather an enthusiast who is learning by doing. I might have
misinterpreted some technical nuances in my analysis, and I apologize
in advance for any inaccuracies in my methodology. However, the data
presented in the attached logs (extracted directly from my device)
speaks for itself and indicates a clear violation of GPL requirements.
I believe that even as a non-expert, I have the right to request
transparency for the code running on my hardware, and I would
appreciate any guidance from the community to help me understand these
findings better.»