Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] software node: Implement device_get_match_data fwnode callback

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 11:21:59AM +0800, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
> On 2026/1/12 15:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 12:26:21PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > Because the software node backend of the fwnode API framework lacks an
> > > implementation for the .device_get_match_data function callback.
> > Maybe this is done on purpose.
> 
> It is a *fact* that the broken swnode lacks an implementation for the .device_get_match_data stub.

No need to re-create board files when it's not needed or doesn't fit.

> Otherwise, If it is really done *on purpose*, the maintainers of swnode
> backend could/shall document it in the source file *explicitly*.

Probably it should be spoken in a better way.

> > Have you thought about this aspect?
> 
> If you are sure, then stop telling us something start with "Maybe ..."

I wasn't the author of the swnode idea I can't read their minds. Please,
ask the respective people about this directly.

> > > This makes it difficult to use(and/or test) a few drivers that originates
> > > from DT world on the non-DT platform.
> > How difficult?
> 
> The emphasis isn't on the 'difficult', it means that not convenient
> 
> > DSA implementation went to the way of taking DT overlay
> > approach.
> 
> Software node can do the same implementation just as what ACPI fwnode backend does.
> 
> > Why that one can't be applied here?
> 
> DT overlay requires the OS distribution(such as ubuntu) has theDT overlay
> config option selected.  this is introduce extra overhead/side effects on the
> non-DT systems.

If we have hotpluggable or runtime reconfigurable devices this is the expected
option to support them. I don't see a problem here.

> > > Implement the .device_get_match_data fwnode callback, which helps to keep
> > > the three backends of the fwnode API aligned as much as possible. This is
> > > also a fundamental step to make a few drivers OF-independent truely
> > > possible.
> > > 
> > > Device drivers or platform setup codes are expected to provide a software
> > > node string property, named as "compatible". At this moment, the value of
> > > this string property is being used to match against the compatible entries
> > > in the of_device_id table. It can be extended in the future though.
> > I really do not want to see this patch
> 
> Whatever!
> 
> Then just stop the endless, bruth-force ranting on such a straight-forward thing.
> 
> > without very good justification
> 
> Justifications has been provided over and over again.
> 
> > (note, there were at least two attempts in the past
> 
> This exactly saying that the implementation is missing.

Now you count a third one for your pleasure :-)

P.S.
We already had this discussion in the past and this attitude won't help
moving forward.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko