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

[Sui Jingfeng <sui.jingfeng@linux.dev>]

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.


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

Have you thought about this aspect?
> 

If it is sure thing, then it shouldn't start with "Maybe ..."


>> 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' word, it means 'inconvenience'

> DSA implementation went to the way of taking DT overlay
> approach. Why that one can't be applied here?


Software node as an complement of ACPI, Therefore should do the same.



DT overlay introduce extra overhead/side effects on the non-DT systems.

Besides, DT overlay requires the OS distribution(such as ubuntu) has the 
DT overlay config option selected.



> 
>> 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

You can do that by dropping the maintainer-ship.

Your endless, bruth-force ranting on such a straight-forward thing 
doesn't make much sense, because that waste everybody's time.

> without very good justification


Justifications has been provided over and over again.

> (note, there were at least two attempts in the past to add this stuff

This exactly saying that the implementation is missing.

>   and no-one was merged, 

That's the reason why you see it at least the second time.

have you studied those cases?).
> 

The first one is not 100% correct.