From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: tas2552: Support TI TAS2552 Amplifier Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 09:37:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20140701083749.GH28740@leverpostej> References: <1404148259-17305-1-git-send-email-dmurphy@ti.com> <20140630172115.GE28740@leverpostej> <20140630214342.GI23300@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140630214342.GI23300@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-sound-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Dan Murphy , "linux-sound@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:43:42PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:21:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:10:59PM +0100, Dan Murphy wrote: > > > > +Optional properties: > > > > +- power-gpio - gpio pin to enable/disable the device > > > The code below seems to look for "enable-gpio". Searching for > > "power-gpio" only hits in the line above and the example below. I assume > > the code is in error? > > It depends what this is for - if it's for an external regulator it > should be a regulator binding. Also all GPIO properties > are supposed to be called -gpios because DT conventions. Sure. I was commenting on the mismatch between "enable" in the code and "power" in the documentation rather than the appropriateness of either "power-gpios" or "enable-gpios". Mark.