On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:41 AM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Linus, do you think we should introduce GPIOD_OUT_INACTIVE / > GPIOD_OUT_ACTIVE or GPIOD_OUT_DEASSERTED / GPIOD_OUT_ASSERTED and > deprecate existing GPIOD_OUT_LOW and GPIO_OUT_HIGH? They should rather be replaced everywhere in one go. I think it is just a half-measure unless we also add #define GPIOD_ASSERTED 1 #define GPIOD_DEASSERTED 0 to be used instead of 1/0 in gpiod_set_value(). It would also imply changing the signature of the function gpiod_set_value() to gpiod_set_state() as we are not really setting a value but a state. I have thought about changing this, but the problem is that I felt it should be accompanied with a change fixing as many users as possible. I think this is one of those occasions where we should merge the new defines, and then send Linus Torvalds a sed script that he can run at the end of the merge window to change all gpiod_set_value(...., 1) -> gpiod_set_state(...., GPIOD_ASSERTED); everywhere. After all users are changed, the GPIOD_ASSERTED/DEASSERTED defined can be turned into an enum. That would be the silver bullet against a lot of confusion IMO. We would need Bartosz' input on this. Yours, Linus Walleij
