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

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 5:52 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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...
>

I'm not sure what you need aliases for? Value is only shown, never
stored (where you'd need "active", "inactive" strings).

Bart