Hello, On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 06:24:54PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 11:14:59AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > 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? I found https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/CACRpkdZAm5AML6cfrX_VrzyADASj1rsVXC3zwtfdo+aRSgX7fQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ but not that other thread Linus mentions there. I would have expected https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/?q=GPIO_OUT_ASSERTED to find it, but it doesn't. > > 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 Ack, we shouldn't rename that to assert-low :-) > know if there is a good reason not to go with active/inactive. Linus: So we're already 3 out of 3 who would like active/inactive better than asserted/deasserted. I'm curious about your preference, too. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
