Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] gpiolib: match secondary fwnode too in gpio_device_find_by_fwnode()

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 8:45 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon Feb 23, 2026 at 4:40 PM CET, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >  static int gpio_chip_match_by_fwnode(struct gpio_chip *gc, const void *fwnode)
> >  {
> > -     return device_match_fwnode(&gc->gpiodev->dev, fwnode);
> > +     struct device *dev = &gc->gpiodev->dev;
> > +     struct fwnode_handle *node = dev_fwnode(dev);
> > +
> > +     if (IS_ERR(fwnode))
> > +             return 0;
> > +
> > +     if (device_match_fwnode(dev, fwnode))
> > +             return 1;
> > +
> > +     return fwnode_is_primary(node) && node->secondary == fwnode;
> >  }
>
> Rafael, I understand [1] as you agree with my point, but object to introduce
> device_match_fwnode_ext() (or whatever name we would pick eventually :)
> regardless because only the GPIO code would need it as by now.

This is a preference, not a strong objection, but yes.

> IIUC, I wonder if exposing fwnode_is_primary() instead is a good trade.

Well, there is the secondary pointer in struct fwnode_handle, so it is
kind of exported anyway and it could be documented as "a secondary
fwnode_handle supplying additional properties or an error pointer", so
exposing this static inline doesn't change much IMV.

What's your specific concern about exposing it?

> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/driver-core/CAJZ5v0jUCtKTW-g-C0pKu0DQqOkyfSz=upXwbtYeV_=rMBUMyg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/