Re: [PATCH 1/2] driver core: provide device_match_fwnode_ext()

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 17:55:20 +0100, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
> On Thu Feb 19, 2026 at 5:39 PM CET, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 5:36 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 05:31:22PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> > Provide an extended variant of device_match_fwnode() that also tries to
>>> > match the device's secondary fwnode.
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > ---
>>> >  drivers/base/core.c        | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>> >  include/linux/device/bus.h |  1 +
>>> >  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
>>> > index f599a1384eec90c104601422b04dc2b4c19d4382..bbf1337978fafc35eb94bda85e0bb7f6879879c0 100644
>>> > --- a/drivers/base/core.c
>>> > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
>>> > @@ -5326,6 +5326,20 @@ int device_match_fwnode(struct device *dev, const void *fwnode)
>>> >  }
>>> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_match_fwnode);
>>> >
>>> > +int device_match_fwnode_ext(struct device *dev, const void *fwnode)
>>>
>>> No kernel doc to explain what this function does?
>>>
>>> :(
>>>
>>
>> It's not like any of the other variants from this file were documented
>> but ok, I can add it in v2. Still, I'd like to hear if this even makes
>> sense.
>
> I'd argue that the other ones are very obvious, as they just encapsulate a
> single operation rather than any logic, whereas this one does have some logic.
>
> Also, is there a reason why we need both device_match_fwnode() *and*
> device_match_fwnode_ext()?
>

No reason at all other than not wanting to have an impact wider than necessary.
But in most case, this should be transparent for existing users to why not, let
me go through them and see if anything can break.

Bartosz