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

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 09:15:55PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 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).
> 

I was thinking wrt the definition in DT - to  allow the switch to
output-active etc throughout.  And I suppose also for configuring the
hogs in configfs, but mainly the DT.

Cheers,
Kent.