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

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 03:18:24PM -0600, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:27:51 +0100, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 05:55:20PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> >> On Thu Feb 19, 2026 at 5:39 PM CET, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> >> Also, is there a reason why we need both device_match_fwnode() *and*
> >> device_match_fwnode_ext()?
> >
> > Yes. We don't want (at least for now) to dive into bug hunting in a 2+ years
> > horizon if something goes wrong with [currently] working drivers that use
> > device_match_fwnode() against the cases when there are primary and secondary
> > fwnodes present.
> >
> > I won't put my bet that extending device_match_fwnode() won't break anything.
> > And I don't want to invest (waste?) my time to learn each of the existing cases.
> >
> > The proposed way is robust and safest. And for the record, I will be the first
> > person to push back device_match_fwnode() upgrade without a comprehensive testing
> > on real (affected) HW.
> 
> Who's got the final word here? I responded to Danilo's email saying I can fold
> the new code into the existing function but you are against it.

Of course I am not a maintainer, but as I said, I will be not okay without
proven tests on the real HW. It's non-trivial change as it may lead to
a problematic behaviour that one may not observe immediately (it might affect
1 out of 100s platforms). So, it will be hidden till unknown point in time
in the future.

I prefer safest way. And then we can convert case-by-case without hurry, which
is the usual cause of the subtle bugs.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko