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

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:55 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

But gpio-sim doesn't handle DT separately - it reuses the gpiolib-of
code and pretty much works like regular DT drivers.

Bart