On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Fabio Estevam <feste...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Benoît Thébaudeau > <benoit.thebaud...@advansee.com> wrote: >> Dear Otavio Salvador, >> >> On Saturday, September 28, 2013 5:24:17 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>> There're cases we want to use active-low LEDs and the 'inverted' logic >>> needs to be added. This includes it using the STATUS_LED_INVERT macro. >> >> There is already a STATUS_LED_ACTIVE definition (though not one per LED) in >> include/status_led.h for some platforms. Wouldn't it be worth keeping the >> same >> naming here for consistency (i.e. STATUS_LED_ACTIVEn, which would also imply >> exchanging 0/1 values)? > > I agree. "INVERT" is confusing, because we don't know what is the normal > state. > > Doing like Benoît suggests would be clearer: STATUS_LED_ACTIVE0 or > STATUS_LED_ACTIVE1.
The problem here is that the BIT LEDs are used in the cmd_led and it does not have the 'active' knowledge but a ON OFF concept. So what we do there is to change the intended status. The STATUS_LED_ACTIVE is for the STATUS_LED_BOOT and not for a 'specific' bit. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot