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
