Hello, this is another approach after https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/20210503210526.43455-1-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx two years ago. I switched back to "active" and "inactive" from "asserted" and "deasserted". The poll about the naming is ambigous, but I think with a slight preference of active/inactive over asserted/deasserted (with my unbiased self preferring active/inactive, too :-) Rob Herring acked patch #1 and Linus Walleij acked patch #2 of the asserted/deasserted variant back then, I dropped these as the change is too relevant IMHO. In the previous post I had some inconsistencies that should be gone now. And Andy wrote: > I like the idea (with active-inactive terms), but... > > It’s a half baked solution. Please use fwnode to cover all possible > providers. which I didn't address because I want to change what is currently supported and not introduce new support. Adding fwnode is orthogonal to this renaming. I didn't find any other more general implementation that would affect more than "of" for output-high and output-low. Please tell me if I missed something. Best regards Uwe Uwe Kleine-König (2): dt-bindings: gpio: introduce hog properties with less ambiguity gpio: use "active" and "inactive" instead of "high" and "low" for output hogs Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt | 16 +++++++++++----- drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c | 10 ++++++++-- include/linux/gpio/consumer.h | 14 ++++++++++---- 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) base-commit: 8c33787278ca8db73ad7d23f932c8c39b9f6e543 -- 2.39.2
