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

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 11:14:59AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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
> 

Thanks - I'd missed that.

I don't suppose you happen to have a link to the gpiod_set_value()
discussion that Linus mentions?

> While I like active/inactive better than asserted/deasserted, the latter
> is still way better than high/low, so I didn't discuss.
> 

As a native English speaker, I find deasserted to be awkward - though it
is the appropriate negative of asserted in this context.

And there is no escaping the naming of the active-low, so I'm curious to
know if there is a good reason not to go with active/inactive.

Cheers,
Kent.