[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <432c41fe-8afa-2ccb-8917-fd64f4895144@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:27:04 -0500
From: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: <lgirdwood@...il.com>, <perex@...ex.cz>, <tiwai@...e.com>,
<robh@...nel.org>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ASoC: tas2562: Update shutdown GPIO property
Mark
On 6/12/20 11:22 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:18:57AM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote:
>> On 6/12/20 11:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:06:03AM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote:
>>>> - tas2562->sdz_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "shut-down-gpio",
>>>> + tas2562->sdz_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "shutdown",
>>>> GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
>>> This also changes the name from shut-down to shutdown which will be
>>> incompatible (IIRC we do try -gpio as well as -gpios).
>> Yes the non-standardish name was highlighted by Rob[1].
> Yes, but we released with it so it's an ABI now and we should still
> support the old name.
Well should we then just revert back to the non-standard name and just
fix up the code?
Or should we support both properties?
Dan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists