On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 05:19:44PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > 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 :-) > FWIW, this makes sense to me too - the active/inactive naming is used in both the GPIO uAPI and libgpiod v2, so it would be consistent with that, if nothing else. Bart, just wondering if gpio-sim should support the aliases as well? I realise they don't support active-low, so polarity isn't an issue, and it could even be confusing to support the alias, but just throwing it out there... Cheers, Kent.
