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 11:31:56AM +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.

thanks,

greg k-h