Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: gpio: add gpio-aggregator binding

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 12:00 PM Linus Walleij <linusw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 10:06 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 at 19:34, James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 1:25 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 at 22:22, James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > This gpio-map feature doesn't exist in the mainline kernel does it?
> > > >
> > > > Yes it is.
> > >
> > > Oh, where in the mainline kernel is the code for it? I searched and
> > > couldn't find any references to it.
> >
> > git grep -w of_parse_phandle_with_args_map
> >
> > Note that that does not find interrupt nexi, as that code doesn't use the
> > of_parse_phandle_with_args_map() helper (perhaps it should?).
>
> I doubt interrupts on nexi works. Which may be a reason they
> are not used very much.

interrupt-map should work just fine. It's only existed since the
1990s. And yes, you need both gpio-map and interrupt-map if your GPIOs
also support interrupts. However, it won't work with
of_parse_phandle_with_args_map() because of the tie-in with
#address-cells and other historical quirks, but that would only ever
be an internal implementation detail. The standard interrupt APIs
should be used and will all just work.

>
> And as such it would be pretty half-baked wouldn't it...
>
> Probably Geert's suggestion to use the aggregator is a better
> idea.

I don't know what that is to comment. (Please don't reply with "you
reviewed it" unless it was more recent than last week. :) )

Rob