[AMD Official Use Only - General]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 9:41 PM
> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>; Quan, Evan <Evan.Quan@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: rafael@xxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; Deucher, Alexander
> <Alexander.Deucher@xxxxxxx>; Koenig, Christian
> <Christian.Koenig@xxxxxxx>; Pan, Xinhui <Xinhui.Pan@xxxxxxx>;
> airlied@xxxxxxxxx; daniel@xxxxxxxx; johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx;
> pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; mdaenzer@xxxxxxxxxx;
> maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tzimmermann@xxxxxxx;
> hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx; jingyuwang_vip@xxxxxxx; Lazar, Lijo
> <Lijo.Lazar@xxxxxxx>; jim.cromie@xxxxxxxxx; bellosilicio@xxxxxxxxx;
> andrealmeid@xxxxxxxxxx; trix@xxxxxxxxxx; jsg@xxxxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; amd-
> gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 4/9] wifi: mac80211: Add support for ACPI WBRF
>
> On 7/24/2023 04:22, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> @@ -1395,6 +1395,8 @@ int ieee80211_register_hw(struct
> ieee80211_hw *hw)
> >> debugfs_hw_add(local);
> >> rate_control_add_debugfs(local);
> >>
> >> + ieee80211_check_wbrf_support(local);
> >> +
> >> rtnl_lock();
> >> wiphy_lock(hw->wiphy);
> >>
> >
> >> +void ieee80211_check_wbrf_support(struct ieee80211_local *local) {
> >> + struct wiphy *wiphy = local->hw.wiphy;
> >> + struct device *dev;
> >> +
> >> + if (!wiphy)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + dev = wiphy->dev.parent;
> >> + if (!dev)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + local->wbrf_supported = wbrf_supported_producer(dev);
> >> + dev_dbg(dev, "WBRF is %s supported\n",
> >> + local->wbrf_supported ? "" : "not"); }
> >
> > This seems wrong. wbrf_supported_producer() is about "Should this
> > device report the frequencies it is using?" The answer to that depends
> > on a combination of: Are there consumers registered with the core, and
> > is the policy set so WBRF should take actions. > The problem here is,
> > you have no idea of the probe order. It could be this device probes
> > before others, so wbrf_supported_producer() reports false, but a few
> > second later would report true, once other devices have probed.
> >
> > It should be an inexpensive call into the core, so can be made every
> > time the channel changes. All the core needs to do is check if the
> > list of consumers is empty, and if not, check a Boolean policy value.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> No, it's not a combination of whether consumers are registered with the core.
> If a consumer probes later it needs to know the current in use frequencies too.
>
> The reason is because of this sequence of events:
> 1) Producer probes.
> 2) Producer selects a frequency.
> 3) Consumer probes.
> 4) Producer stays at same frequency.
>
> If the producer doesn't notify the frequency because a consumer isn't yet
> loaded then the consumer won't be able to get the current frequency.
Yes, exactly.
