Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 19:26:09 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Evan Quan <evan.quan@amd.com>, rafael@kernel.org,
        lenb@kernel.org, alexander.deucher@amd.com,
        christian.koenig@amd.com, Xinhui.Pan@amd.com, airlied@gmail.com,
        daniel@ffwll.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
        kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, mdaenzer@redhat.com,
        maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, tzimmermann@suse.de,
        hdegoede@redhat.com, jingyuwang_vip@163.com, lijo.lazar@amd.com,
        jim.cromie@gmail.com, bellosilicio@gmail.com,
        andrealmeid@igalia.com, trix@redhat.com, jsg@jsg.id.au,
        arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/8] drivers/acpi: Add support for Wifi band RF
 mitigations
Message-ID: <9159c3a5-390f-4403-854d-9b5e87b58d8c@lunn.ch>
References: <20230621054603.1262299-1-evan.quan@amd.com>
 <20230621054603.1262299-2-evan.quan@amd.com>
 <3a7c8ffa-de43-4795-ae76-5cd9b00c52b5@lunn.ch>
 <216f3c5aa1299100a0009ddf4e95b019855a32be.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <b1abec47-04df-4481-d680-43c5ff3cbb48@amd.com>
 <36902dda-9e51-41b3-b5fc-c641edf6f1fb@lunn.ch>
 <33d80292-e639-91d0-4d0f-3ed973f89e14@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <33d80292-e639-91d0-4d0f-3ed973f89e14@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

> I think what you're asking for is another layer of indirection
> like CONFIG_WBRF in addition to CONFIG_ACPI_WBRF.
> 
> Producers would call functions like wbrf_supported_producer()
> where the source file is not guarded behind CONFIG_ACPI_WBRF,
> but instead by CONFIG_WBRF and locally use CONFIG_ACPI_WBRF within
> it.? So a producer could look like this:
> 
> bool wbrf_supported_producer(struct device *dev)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_WBRF
> ??? struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
> 
> ??? if (adev)
> ?? ???? return check_acpi_wbrf(adev->handle,
> ??? ?? ? ?? ??? ?????? WBRF_REVISION,
> ??? ??? ?? ? ?? ?????? 1ULL << WBRF_RECORD);
> #endif
> ??? return -ENODEV;
> 
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wbrf_supported_producer);
> 
> And then adding/removing could look something like this
> 
> int wbrf_add_exclusion(struct device *dev,
> ??? ??? ?????? struct wbrf_ranges_in *in)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_WBRF
> ??? struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
> 
> ??? if (adev)
> ?? ???? return wbrf_record(adev, WBRF_RECORD_ADD, in);
> #endif
> ??? return -ENODEV;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wbrf_add_exclusion);
> 
> int wbrf_remove_exclusion(struct device *dev,
> ??? ??? ?????? struct wbrf_ranges_in *in)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_WBRF
> ??? struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
> 
> ??? if (adev)
> ?? ???? return wbrf_record(adev, WBRF_RECORD_REMOVE, in);
> #endif
> ??? return -ENODEV;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wbrf_remove_exclusion);

Yes, this looks a lot better.

But what about notifications?

    Andrew