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

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 02:35:41PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 12:56 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> but not active
> > > know if there is a good reason not to go with active/inactive.
> >
> > Linus: So we're already 3 out of 3 who would like active/inactive better
> > than asserted/deasserted. I'm curious about your preference, too.
> 
> I suppose it depends on where you come from. In electronics
> the terms asserted/deasserted is commonly used and
> that is where I'm coming from. Maybe just the materials
> I've been subjected to, who knows.
> 

I also come from electronics and, depending on context, deasserted can
also mean the line is set to high impedance. Here we are trying to
indicate that the line is actively driven to the inactive state, so
using output-deasserted would be more open to misinterpretation than
output-inactive, no?

Cheers,
Kent.