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 While I like active/inactive better than asserted/deasserted, the latter is still way better than high/low, so I didn't discuss. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
