[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <867c2sh6jx.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 14:52:18 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring
<robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will
Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Sascha Bischoff
<sascha.bischoff@....com>,
Timothy Hayes <timothy.hayes@....com>,
"Liam R.\
Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 20/25] irqchip/gic-v5: Add GICv5 PPI support
On Wed, 07 May 2025 14:42:42 +0100,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 07 2025 at 10:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 May 2025 16:00:31 +0100,
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> How does this test distinguish between LEVEL_LOW and LEVEL_HIGH? It only
> >> tests for level, no? So the test is interesting at best ...
> >
> > There is no distinction between HIGH and LOW, RISING and FALLING, in
> > any revision of the GIC architecture.
>
> Then pretending that there is a set_type() functionality is pretty daft
You still need to distinguish between level and edge when this is
programmable (which is the case for a subset of the PPIs).
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists