@@ -528,7 +528,8 @@ static int max98926_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
"Failed to allocate regmap: %d\n", ret);
goto err_out;
}
- if (of_property_read_bool(i2c->dev.of_node, "interleave-mode"))
+ if (of_property_read_bool(i2c->dev.of_node, "maxim,interleave-mode") ||
+ of_property_read_bool(i2c->dev.of_node, "interleave-mode"))
max98926->interleave_mode = true;
if (!of_property_read_u32(i2c->dev.of_node, "vmon-slot-no", &value)) {
@@ -879,14 +879,14 @@ static int max98927_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
i2c_set_clientdata(i2c, max98927);
/* update interleave mode info */
- if (!of_property_read_u32(i2c->dev.of_node,
- "interleave_mode", &value)) {
- if (value > 0)
- max98927->interleave_mode = true;
- else
- max98927->interleave_mode = false;
- } else
- max98927->interleave_mode = false;
+ if (of_property_read_bool(i2c->dev.of_node, "maxim,interleave-mode")) {
+ max98927->interleave_mode = true;
+ } else {
+ if (!of_property_read_u32(i2c->dev.of_node, "interleave_mode",
+ &value))
+ if (value > 0)
+ max98927->interleave_mode = true;
+ }
/* regmap initialization */
max98927->regmap
MAX98926 and MAX98927 are quite similar and use the same bindings, although drivers were not implementing them in the same way: MAX98926 has boolean "interleave-mode" but MAX98927 has uint32 "interleave_mode". Unify them under maxim,interleave-mode, already used in other Maxim device. Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> --- Changes in v2: 1. New patch --- sound/soc/codecs/max98926.c | 3 ++- sound/soc/codecs/max98927.c | 16 ++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)