On 27.06.2024 14:34, Fabio Estevam wrote:
[You don't often get email from festevam@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:31 AM Mikhail Kshevetskiy mikhail.kshevetskiy@iopsys.eu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Mikhail Kshevetskiy mikhail.kshevetskiy@iopsys.eu
drivers/spi/soft_spi.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/spi/soft_spi.c b/drivers/spi/soft_spi.c index 0fa14339bdc..3fe62818a44 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/soft_spi.c +++ b/drivers/spi/soft_spi.c @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static int soft_spi_probe(struct udevice *dev) ret = gpio_request_by_name(dev, "gpio-miso", 0, &plat->miso, GPIOD_IS_IN); if (ret)
ret = gpio_request_by_name(dev, "gpio-miso", 0, &plat->miso,
ret = gpio_request_by_name(dev, "miso-gpios", 0, &plat->miso,We should support the deprecated 'gpio-miso' property and the preferred 'miso-gpios' one.
The same applies for gpio-sck and gpio-mosi.
This is exactly what the patch did. Actually it just fix a miss-print. Other properties already have a proper fallback.
GPIOD_IS_IN); if (ret) plat->flags |= SPI_MASTER_NO_RX;-- 2.43.0