On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Fabio Estevam festevam@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Benoît Thébaudeau benoit.thebaudeau@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.