2024-02-13 14:12:57

by Kent Gibson

Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: gpio: consistent use of logical line value terminology

Consistently use active/inactive to describe logical line values, rather
than high/low, which is used for physical values, or asserted/de-asserted
which is awkward.

Signed-off-by: Kent Gibson <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/driver-api/gpio/consumer.rst | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/gpio/consumer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/gpio/consumer.rst
index 3e588b9d678c..ab56ab0dd7a6 100644
--- a/Documentation/driver-api/gpio/consumer.rst
+++ b/Documentation/driver-api/gpio/consumer.rst
@@ -222,9 +222,9 @@ Use the following calls to access GPIOs from an atomic context::
int gpiod_get_value(const struct gpio_desc *desc);
void gpiod_set_value(struct gpio_desc *desc, int value);

-The values are boolean, zero for low, nonzero for high. When reading the value
-of an output pin, the value returned should be what's seen on the pin. That
-won't always match the specified output value, because of issues including
+The values are boolean, zero for inactive, nonzero for active. When reading the
+value of an output pin, the value returned should be what's seen on the pin.
+That won't always match the specified output value, because of issues including
open-drain signaling and output latencies.

The get/set calls do not return errors because "invalid GPIO" should have been
@@ -277,11 +277,11 @@ switch their output to a high impedance value. The consumer should not need to
care. (For details read about open drain in driver.rst.)

With this, all the gpiod_set_(array)_value_xxx() functions interpret the
-parameter "value" as "asserted" ("1") or "de-asserted" ("0"). The physical line
+parameter "value" as "active" ("1") or "inactive" ("0"). The physical line
level will be driven accordingly.

As an example, if the active low property for a dedicated GPIO is set, and the
-gpiod_set_(array)_value_xxx() passes "asserted" ("1"), the physical line level
+gpiod_set_(array)_value_xxx() passes "active" ("1"), the physical line level
will be driven low.

To summarize::
--
2.39.2

2024-02-13 14:20:46

by Andy Shevchenko

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: gpio: consistent use of logical line value terminology

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:12 PM Kent Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Consistently use active/inactive to describe logical line values, rather
> than high/low, which is used for physical values, or asserted/de-asserted
> which is awkward.

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
Thanks!

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

2024-02-13 21:41:44

by Linus Walleij

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: gpio: consistent use of logical line value terminology

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kent Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Consistently use active/inactive to describe logical line values, rather
> than high/low, which is used for physical values, or asserted/de-asserted
> which is awkward.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kent Gibson <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>

Yours,
Linus Walleij

2024-02-14 10:54:47

by Bartosz Golaszewski

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: gpio: consistent use of logical line value terminology

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 3:12 PM Kent Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Consistently use active/inactive to describe logical line values, rather
> than high/low, which is used for physical values, or asserted/de-asserted
> which is awkward.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kent Gibson <[email protected]>
> ---

Applied, thanks!

Bart