Re: [PATCH] Revert "gpio: swnode: don't use the swnode's name as the key for GPIO lookup"

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:43:16PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:31:56AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Charles Keepax
> > > <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This reverts commit 25decf0469d4c91d90aa2e28d996aed276bfc622.
> > > >
> > > > This software node change doesn't actually fix any current issues
> > > > with the kernel, it is an improvement to the lookup process rather
> > > > than fixing a live bug. It also causes a couple of regressions with
> > > > shipping laptops, which relied on the label based lookup.
> > > >
> > > > There is a fix for the regressions in mainline, the first 5 patches
> > > > of [1]. However, those patches are fairly substantial changes and
> > > > given the patch causing the regression doesn't actually fix a bug
> > > > it seems better to just revert it in stable.
> > > >
> > > > CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.12, 6.17
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sound/20251120-reset-gpios-swnodes-v7-0-a100493a0f4b@linaro.org/ [1]
> > > > Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5599
> > > > Closes: https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5603
> > > > Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't exactly sure of the proceedure for reverting a patch that was
> > > > cherry-picked to stable, so apologies if I have made any mistakes here
> > > > but happy to update if necessary.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Yes, I'd like to stress the fact that this MUST NOT be reverted in
> > > mainline, only in v6.12 and v6.17 stable branches.
> > 
> > But why?  Why not take the upstream changes instead?  We would much
> > rather do that as it reduces the divergance.  5 patches is trivial for
> > us to take.
> 
> My thinking was that they are a bit invasive for backports, as
> noted in the commit message. But if that is the preferred option
> I can do a series with those instead?

I'd prefer to take what is upstream, it's simpler over the long term to
do so.

thanks,

greg k-h