Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: gpio: introduce hog properties with less ambiguity

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux