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: <CAHp75VddjcLaRqugKuk+eejYx_0AHVL4SjYcdh7zUKDj8SpcQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 11:28:54 +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 Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 1:13 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 06:58:14PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Agreed. Those are the last remnants of the low/high terminolgy that I am
> aware of, certainly the last in gpio.h.
>
> Having a closer look to double check...
>
> Ah - it is still used in Documentation/userspace-api/gpio/sysfs.rst -
> not somewhere I go very often.
> Would you like that updated in a separate patch?

Yes, please. For this one
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko