On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 12:25 +0200, Simon Budig wrote:
> *If* that is actually the case (i.e. requesting an pin specified as
> GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW in the devicetree with the GPIOD_OUT_HIGH flag
> results in 0V on this pin) then this patch should probably be
> dropped, although I don't like how this code reads then.
Ok, I've traced the code in the gpio-subsystem and indeed, requesting
with the GPIOD_OUT_HIGH flag results in a LOW leveGPIOD_OUT_HIGH upon
request when the GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW is set on that pin.
That constant really should've been called GPIOD_OUT_ACTIVE or
something. That reads confusing as heck.
Anyway, please drop this patch. It doesn't actually do any good.
Thanks,
Simon
--
kernel concepts GmbH Simon Budig
Sieghuetter Hauptweg 48 simon.budig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
D-57072 Siegen +49-271-771091-17
http://www.kernelconcepts.de/
HR Siegen, HR B 9613; Geschäftsführer: Ole ReinhardtAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
