I've tweaked your patch to make the above (buggy) change a little clearer. On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 02:44:53PM +0000, Liviu Dudau wrote: > - for (i = 0;; i++) { > - port = of_parse_phandle(np, "ports", i); > - if (!port) > - break; > - > - if (!of_device_is_available(port->parent)) { > - of_node_put(port); > - continue; > - } > > - component_match_add(dev, &match, compare_of, port->parent); > - of_node_put(port); > - } > -static int compare_of(struct device *dev, void *data) > -{ > - struct device_node *np = data; > - > - return dev->of_node == np; > -} The original above passes port->parent to component_match_add(). This means 'np' in the above compare_of() function is 'port->parent'. This means the above comparison is effectively: dev->of_node == port->parent The generic code instead does this: component_match_add(dev, &match, compare_of, port); So what we get in the comparison function is 'port' rather than 'port->parent': > +static int compare_port(struct device *dev, void *data) > { > + struct device_node *np = data; > + return dev->parent->of_node == np; > +} which means the comparison is: dev->parent->of_node == port which is a different comparison from the above. You instead want this to be: return dev->of_node == np->parent; Heiko, please test the above change to compare_port() - I think you'll find that will fix your issue. Thanks. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.