Hello Andy,
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:51:34AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 6:19 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > For active-low GPIOs the currently available nomenclature requires
> > regular explaination to the non-enlightened folks, e.g. because a hog
>
> explanation
>
> > defined as:
> >
> > someline {
> > gpio-hog;
> > gpios = <24 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > output-high;
> > }
> >
> > results in the line being set to the physical low level.
> >
> > So use the terms "active" and "inactive" which are less ambigous and
>
> ambiguous
Damn, I should configure my editor to enable spell checking
automatically. Thanks.
> > keep the old names as synonyms. The above example can now be written as:
> >
> > someline {
> > gpio-hog;
> > gpios = <24 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > output-active;
> > }
> >
> > where it is less surprising that the output is set to a low level.
>
> As I said before, this does not cover the ACPI case. Consider
I don't understand that concern. Currently there is nothing for ACPI
that parses "output-high" et al. So you want me to introduce support for
hogs defined by ACPI to fix the strange semantic for dt-defined hogs?
What am I missing?
> > + GPIOD_OUT_LOW_OPEN_DRAIN = GPIOD_OUT_INACTIVE_OPEN_DRAIN,
> > + GPIOD_OUT_HIGH_OPEN_DRAIN = GPIOD_OUT_ACTIVE_OPEN_DRAIN,
>
> This one is an interesting case, because depending on the transistor
> polarity this may be active GND or VDD. All the same for OPEN_SOURCE
> which seems not defined (but should be equivalent to the opposite to
> the _DRAIN cases).
This is (also) orthogonal to my change, right?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
