Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 16:59:40 +0100
From:   Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@linaro.org>,
        Grant Likely <glikely@secretlab.ca>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/36] dt-bindings: arm: Convert PMU binding to
 json-schema
Message-ID: <20181108165940.64ad52f1@windsurf>
In-Reply-To: <08738708-1c38-fab7-eb34-694e5f4d4b7e@arm.com>
References: <20181005165848.3474-1-robh@kernel.org>
        <20181005165848.3474-14-robh@kernel.org>
        <20181009115713.GE6248@arm.com>
        <CAL_JsqJh08wZCyGxg7HMbtKjOJTZKMoQcNOB_hPuSfJKQQK8JA@mail.gmail.com>
        <08738708-1c38-fab7-eb34-694e5f4d4b7e@arm.com>
Organization: Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

I'm jumping into the discussion, but I clearly don't have all the
context of the discussion.

On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:54:31 +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:

> >> This seems like a semantic different between the two representations, or am
> >> I missing something here? Specifically, both the introduction of
> >> interrupts-extended and also dropping any mention of using a single per-cpu
> >> interrupt (the single combined case is no longer support by Linux; not sure
> >> if you want to keep it in the binding).  
> > 
> > In regards to no support for the single combined interrupt, it looks
> > like Marvell Armada SoCs at least (armada-375 is what I'm looking at)
> > have only a single interrupt. Though the interrupt gets routed to MPIC
> > which then has a GIC PPI. So it isn't supported or happens to work
> > still since it is a PPI?  
> 
> Well, the description of the MPIC in the Armada XP functional spec says:
> 
> "Interrupt sources ID0–ID28 are private events per CPU. Thus, each 
> processor has a different set of events map interrupts ID0–ID28."
> 
> Odd grammar aside, that would seem to imply that <&mpic 3> is a per-cpu 
> interrupt itself, thus AFAICS so long as it's cascaded to a GIC PPI and 
> not an SPI then there's no issue there.

The Armada XP does not have a GIC at all, but only a MPIC as the
primary interrupt controller.

However the Armada 38x has both a GIC and a MPIC, and indeed the parent
interrupts of the MPIC towards the GIC is:

	interrupts = <GIC_PPI 15 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com