On 27/02/2025 19:48, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 06:50:31PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 27.02.2025 5:04 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
The ARM PMU interrupt is sometimes defined as IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW,
or IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH, but downstream and recent platforms used the
IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH flag so align the SM8650 definition to have a
functional PMU working.
Fixes: c8a346e408cb ("arm64: dts: qcom: Split PMU nodes for heterogeneous CPUs")
Fixes: d2350377997f ("arm64: dts: qcom: add initial SM8650 dtsi")
Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
I couldn't find anything to back this up, not inside, not on Arm's
website, but downstream agrees, so..
The GIC doesn't really have a notion of LOW vs HIGH in the programmable
registers. This is generally a design time parameter, e.g. for GIC-600:
Level-sensitive PPI signals are active-LOW by default, as with
previous Arm GIC implementations. However, individual PPI signals can
be inverted and synchronized using parameters
gic600_<config_name>_PPI<ppi_id>_<cpu_number>_<ppi_number>_<INV/SYNC>.
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/100336/0106/components-and-configuration/redistributor/redistributor-ppi-signals
For Linux it shouldn't really matter, because gic_configure_irq()
ignores the polarity and looks only at IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK.
If you still want this to represent the actual truth, then all hints
I can find only back this down (not up) I'm afraid:
Arm® Cortex®‑A520 Core Technical Reference Manual
Arm® Cortex®-A720 Core Technical Reference Manual
Arm® Cortex®-X4 Core Technical Reference Manual
17.2 Performance monitors interrupts
When the PMU generates an interrupt, the nPMUIRQ[n] output is driven LOW.
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102517/0004/Performance-Monitors-Extension-support-/Performance-monitors-interrupts
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102530/0002/Performance-Monitors-Extension-support-/Performance-monitors-interrupts
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102484/0003/Performance-Monitors-Extension-support-/Performance-monitors-interrupts
So please check if this patch is really needed, otherwise I'd suggest
dropping it.
Thanks a lot for looking into this !
I guess I'll drop this, and we may harmonize all qcom dtsi with LOW.
Neil
Thanks,
Stephan
