[PATCH v2] ARM: dts: replace gpio-key, wakeup with wakeup-source property

[sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 07:00:42AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 6:59 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 06:43:30AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 01:42:25PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > > Most of the legacy "gpio-key,wakeup" and "enable-sdio-wakeup" boolean
> > > > properties are already replaced with "wakeup-source". However few
> > > > occurrences of old property has popped up again, probably from the
> > > > remnants in downstream trees. Almost all of those were remove couple
> > > > of years back.
> > > >
> > > > Replace those legacy properties with the unified "wakeup-source"
> > > > property.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-nattis-2-natte-2.dts | 2 +-
> > > >  arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-wb45n.dts            | 2 +-
> > > >  arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-wb50n.dts            | 4 ++--
> > > >  arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-pistachio.dts       | 2 +-
> > > >  arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sll-evk.dts           | 2 +-
> > > >  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zturn.dts            | 2 +-
> > > >  6 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Hi ARM SoC Team,
> > > >
> > > > Though it's more a cleanup, I prefer if this can be pushed as fix
> > > > to avoid more duplication in downstream as well as having to split into
> > > > 3 different patches.
> > >
> > > Is there a reason you're not fixing up xilinx on arm64 while you're at it? Sort
> > > of defeats the purpose of removing all usage of it.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, ZynqMP is the only platform using legacy bindings in arm64 and
> > as Michal mentions he has already taken that one.
>
> Ok, please send the others the same way through maintainers then.
>

OK, I will do so. I was avoiding to put this silly change in 3 different
patches :)

--
Regards,
Sudeep