[AMD Official Use Only - General]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch>
> Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2023 8:20 AM
> To: Quan, Evan <evan.q...@amd.com>
> Cc: raf...@kernel.org; l...@kernel.org; Deucher, Alexander
> <alexander.deuc...@amd.com>; Koenig, Christian
> <christian.koe...@amd.com>; Pan, Xinhui <xinhui....@amd.com>;
> airl...@gmail.com; dan...@ffwll.ch; johan...@sipsolutions.net;
> da...@davemloft.net; eduma...@google.com; k...@kernel.org;
> pab...@redhat.com; Limonciello, Mario <mario.limoncie...@amd.com>;
> mdaen...@redhat.com; maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com;
> tzimmerm...@suse.de; hdego...@redhat.com; jingyuwang_...@163.com;
> Lazar, Lijo <lijo.la...@amd.com>; jim.cro...@gmail.com;
> bellosili...@gmail.com; andrealm...@igalia.com; t...@redhat.com;
> j...@jsg.id.au; a...@arndb.de; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> a...@vger.kernel.org; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-
> de...@lists.freedesktop.org; linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org;
> net...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/9] drivers core: Add support for Wifi band RF
> mitigations
>
> > Drivers/subsystems contributing frequencies:
> >
> > 1) During probe, check `wbrf_supported_producer` to see if WBRF
> supported
> > for the device.
>
> What is the purpose of this stage? Why would it not be supported for this
> device?
This is needed for wbrf support via ACPI mechanism. If BIOS(AML code) does not
support the wbrf adding/removing for some device,
it should speak that out so that the device can be aware of that.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_WBRF
> > +bool wbrf_supported_producer(struct device *dev); int
> > +wbrf_add_exclusion(struct device *adev,
> > + struct wbrf_ranges_in *in);
> > +int wbrf_remove_exclusion(struct device *dev,
> > + struct wbrf_ranges_in *in);
> > +int wbrf_retrieve_exclusions(struct device *dev,
> > + struct wbrf_ranges_out *out); bool
> > +wbrf_supported_consumer(struct device *dev);
> > +
> > +int wbrf_register_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb); int
> > +wbrf_unregister_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb); #else static
> > +inline bool wbrf_supported_producer(struct device *dev) { return
> > +false; } static inline int wbrf_add_exclusion(struct device *adev,
> > + struct wbrf_ranges_in *in) { return -
> ENODEV; } static inline
> > +int wbrf_remove_exclusion(struct device *dev,
> > + struct wbrf_ranges_in *in) { return -
> ENODEV; }
>
> The normal aim of stubs is that so long as it is not expected to be fatal if
> the
> functionality is missing, the caller should not care if it is missing. So i
> would
> expect these to return 0, indicating everything worked as expected.
Sure, that makes sense.
>
> > +static inline int wbrf_retrieve_exclusions(struct device *dev,
> > + struct wbrf_ranges_out *out)
> { return -ENODEV; }
>
> This is more complex. Ideally you want to return an empty set, so there is
> nothing to do. So i think the stub probably wants to do a memset and then
> return 0.
Right, will update it accordingly.
>
> > +static inline bool wbrf_supported_consumer(struct device *dev) {
> > +return false; } static inline int wbrf_register_notifier(struct
> > +notifier_block *nb) { return -ENODEV; } static inline int
> > +wbrf_unregister_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb) { return -ENODEV;
> > +}
>
> And these can just return 0.
Will update it.
Evan
>
> Andrew
