The existing definitions are ambiguous and possibly misleading.

For DP0, 'flow-control' is only relevant for the BRA protocol and
should not be confused with async modes explicitly not supported for
DP0, add prefix to follow MIPI DisCo definition

The use of 'device_interrupts' is also questionable. The MIPI
SoundWire spec defines Slave-, DP0- and DPN-level
implementation-defined interrupts. Using the 'device' prefix in the
last two cases is misleading, not only is the term 'device' overloaded
but these properties are only valid at the DP0 and DPn levels. Rename
to follow the MIPI definitions, no need to be creative here.

Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>