On 27.06.2024 14:34, Fabio Estevam wrote: > [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is > important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:31 AM Mikhail Kshevetskiy > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Mikhail Kshevetskiy <[email protected]> >> --- >> 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 >>
