Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] gpio: introduce hog properties with less ambiguity

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

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...

Cheers,
Kent.