Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: fix PMU interrupt flag

[Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@linaro.org>]

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@linaro.org>
> > ---
> 
> 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,
Stephan