INTR_POLARITY_BOTH_EDGES?

[Gary Jennejohn]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 23:07:22 +0300
Andriy Gapon <avg at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> On 30/06/2020 17:46, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:22:42 +0300
> > Andriy Gapon <avg at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >   
> >> What do you think about adding this to intr_polarity ?
> >> I think that it's useful for two reasons:
> >> - support for GPIO interrupts of that kind (GPIO_INTR_EDGE_BOTH)
> >> - symmetry with ACPI's ACPI_ACTIVE_BOTH (which probably exists for GPIO as well)
> >> This new polarity is to be valid only with INTR_TRIGGER_EDGE as the name (and
> >> sanity) implies.
> >>
> >> By the way, the name is a open for bikeshedding.
> >>  
> > 
> > Seems reasonable, but to my embedded-software developer's ear INTR_ACTIVE_BOTH_EDGES
> > makes more sense.  I mean, a signal may have a polarity, but an interrupt does not.
> >   
> 
> Well, the enumeration is named intr_polarity and all its existing members are
> prefixed with INTR_POLARITY_.  This is probably not the best naming convention
> -- in retrospect.  It sounds natural for level interrupts, but somewhat weird
> for edge interrupts.  But I'll leave changing it for another day (if ever).
> 

OK.  Seems like weird terminology.  But consistency is important

-- 
Gary Jennejohn