Re: [PATCH RFC] dt-bindings: gpio: introduce hog properties with less ambiguity

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:39 AM Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> For active low lines the semantic of output-low and output-high is hard
> to grasp because there is a double negation involved and so output-low
> is actually a request to drive the line high (aka inactive).
>
> So introduce output-inactive and output-active with the same semantic as
> output-low and output-high have respectively today, but with a more
> sensible name.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Hello,
>
> no code changes yet. Just asking for feedback if you consider this
> sensible.

It makes sense, and it is in line with earlier inversion problems that
people have had.

Could you use the properties:
output-asserted
output-deasserted
?

(The anglo-saxon can maybe comment on whether it should be
"deasserted" or "unasserted", sorry for bikeshedding.)

This was the terminology we discussed wrt changing the prototypes
of gpiod_set_value() from:

void gpiod_set_value(struct gpio_desc *desc, int value);

to:

void gpiod_set_value(struct gpio_desc *desc, bool asserted);

This latter simple semantic change over the entire kernel is
something "someone should do" possibly with a script or
Cocinelle.

Yours,
Linus Walleij




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux