Hi,

On 09-03-17 15:03, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 14:57 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On 08-03-17 19:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

<snip soc_button_array stuff>

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

I think that "extcon: int3496: Add GPIO ACPI mapping
table"
will
need
a similar change (I haven't tested it yet).

So I assume you want to do the same (pass NULL as con-id to
gpiod_get_index()) for the extcon-in3496 driver or do you want
to keep the GPIO ACPI mapping table there?

A slightly preferable table variant (needs to be fixed I guess)
because
initial one used to have different labels.

Ok, I will test with the acpi-mapping table then and if necessary
create a fixup patch for it and send that to you.

Sounds like a plan!

Since extcon patches are landed already mainstream it might make sense
to send it as usual to all maintainers.

Ack, so to be clear we should use gpiod_get not gpiod_get_index with
the acpi mapping table, right ? The reason I'm asking is that my
test devices only have the id pin which has index 0 so in my
experience with soc_button_array it will work with both
(the button with index 0 would even work with gpiod_get_index).

Regards,

Hans