On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 11:14:59AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:55:46AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote: > > On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:05:26PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > 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). > > > > +1 on clarifying the naming. > > > > > So introduce output-inactive and output-active with the same semantic as > > > output-low and output-high respectively have today, but with a more > > > sensible name. > > > > > > > You use active/inactive here, but then asserted/deasserted in the patch. > > oops, this is an oversight. > > > My preference would be the active/inactive, which has more of a level > > feel, over the asserted/deasserted which feels more like an edge. > > > > And you still use active/inactive in the descriptions, so now we have all > > three naming schemes in the mix. > > > > What made you change? > > I had active/inactive first, but Linux Walleij requested > asserted/deasserted: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CACRpkdbccHbhYcCyPiSoA7+zGXBtbL_LwLkPB3vQDyOqkTA7EQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Thanks - I'd missed that. I don't suppose you happen to have a link to the gpiod_set_value() discussion that Linus mentions? > While I like active/inactive better than asserted/deasserted, the latter > is still way better than high/low, so I didn't discuss. > As a native English speaker, I find deasserted to be awkward - though it is the appropriate negative of asserted in this context. And there is no escaping the naming of the active-low, so I'm curious to know if there is a good reason not to go with active/inactive. Cheers, Kent.
