On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 09:15:55PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 5:52 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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... > > > > I'm not sure what you need aliases for? Value is only shown, never > stored (where you'd need "active", "inactive" strings). > I was thinking wrt the definition in DT - to allow the switch to output-active etc throughout. And I suppose also for configuring the hogs in configfs, but mainly the DT. Cheers, Kent.
