linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: uapi: clarify default

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VeSLvrxMOARDBHBJ5VGVR-Jv-7saxjJiN-NOPMyTwit3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:58:14 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, brgl@...ev.pl, 
	linus.walleij@...aro.org, andy@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: uapi: clarify default_values being logical

On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 12:14 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The documentation for default_values mentions high/low which can be
> confusing, particularly when the ACTIVE_LOW flag is set.
>
> Replace high/low with active/inactive to clarify that the values are
> logical not physical.
>
> Similarly, clarify the interpretation of values in struct gpiohandle_data.

I'm not against this particular change, but I want the entire GPIO
documentation to be aligned in the terminology aspect. Is this the
case after this patch? I.o.w. have we replaced all leftovers?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko