diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c
index 8d9591aa9304..304994c5c7d0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-swnode.c
@@ -26,7 +26,6 @@
 static struct gpio_device *swnode_get_gpio_device(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
 {
 	const struct software_node *gdev_node;
-	struct gpio_device *gdev;
 
 	gdev_node = to_software_node(fwnode);
 	if (!gdev_node)
@@ -41,27 +40,7 @@ static struct gpio_device *swnode_get_gpio_device(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
 
 fwnode_lookup:
-	gdev = gpio_device_find_by_fwnode(fwnode);
-	if (!gdev && gdev_node && gdev_node->name)
-		/*
-		 * FIXME: We shouldn't need to compare the GPIO controller's
-		 * label against the software node that is supposedly attached
-		 * to it. However there are currently GPIO users that - knowing
-		 * the expected label of the GPIO chip whose pins they want to
-		 * control - set up dummy software nodes named after those GPIO
-		 * controllers, which aren't actually attached to them. In this
-		 * case gpio_device_find_by_fwnode() will fail as no device on
-		 * the GPIO bus is actually associated with the fwnode we're
-		 * looking for.
-		 *
-		 * As a fallback: continue checking the label if we have no
-		 * match. However, the situation described above is an abuse
-		 * of the software node API and should be phased out and the
-		 * following line - eventually removed.
-		 */
-		gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label(gdev_node->name);
-
-	return gdev ?: ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
+	return gpio_device_find_by_fwnode(fwnode) ?: ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
 }
 
 static int swnode_gpio_get_reference(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,