From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: "Quan, Evan" <Evan.Quan@amd.com>
Cc: "jingyuwang_vip@163.com" <jingyuwang_vip@163.com>,
"bellosilicio@gmail.com" <bellosilicio@gmail.com>,
"rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"trix@redhat.com" <trix@redhat.com>,
"Lazar, Lijo" <Lijo.Lazar@amd.com>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"mdaenzer@redhat.com" <mdaenzer@redhat.com>,
"Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>,
"amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
"lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
"andrealmeid@igalia.com" <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
"arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"hdegoede@redhat.com" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@amd.com>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
"tzimmermann@suse.de" <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
"johannes@sipsolutions.net" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/9] drivers core: Add support for Wifi band RF mitigations
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:07:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18dfe989-2610-4234-ade2-ffbc2f233c19@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR12MB2619591A7706A30362E11DC5E42EA@DM6PR12MB2619.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
> > 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.
How much overhead is this adding? How deep do you need to go to find
the BIOS does not support it? And how often is this called?
Where do we want to add complexity? In the generic API? Or maybe a
little deeper in the ACPI specific code?
Andrew
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: "Quan, Evan" <Evan.Quan@amd.com>
Cc: "rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
"Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@amd.com>,
"airlied@gmail.com" <airlied@gmail.com>,
"daniel@ffwll.ch" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
"johannes@sipsolutions.net" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
"Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>,
"mdaenzer@redhat.com" <mdaenzer@redhat.com>,
"maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com"
<maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"tzimmermann@suse.de" <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
"hdegoede@redhat.com" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
"jingyuwang_vip@163.com" <jingyuwang_vip@163.com>,
"Lazar, Lijo" <Lijo.Lazar@amd.com>,
"jim.cromie@gmail.com" <jim.cromie@gmail.com>,
"bellosilicio@gmail.com" <bellosilicio@gmail.com>,
"andrealmeid@igalia.com" <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
"trix@redhat.com" <trix@redhat.com>,
"jsg@jsg.id.au" <jsg@jsg.id.au>, "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/9] drivers core: Add support for Wifi band RF mitigations
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:07:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18dfe989-2610-4234-ade2-ffbc2f233c19@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR12MB2619591A7706A30362E11DC5E42EA@DM6PR12MB2619.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
> > 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.
How much overhead is this adding? How deep do you need to go to find
the BIOS does not support it? And how often is this called?
Where do we want to add complexity? In the generic API? Or maybe a
little deeper in the ACPI specific code?
Andrew
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: "Quan, Evan" <Evan.Quan@amd.com>
Cc: "jingyuwang_vip@163.com" <jingyuwang_vip@163.com>,
"bellosilicio@gmail.com" <bellosilicio@gmail.com>,
"rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"trix@redhat.com" <trix@redhat.com>,
"Lazar, Lijo" <Lijo.Lazar@amd.com>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"mdaenzer@redhat.com" <mdaenzer@redhat.com>,
"Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>,
"airlied@gmail.com" <airlied@gmail.com>,
"amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
"lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
"andrealmeid@igalia.com" <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
"daniel@ffwll.ch" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
"arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com"
<maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"hdegoede@redhat.com" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
"jsg@jsg.id.au" <jsg@jsg.id.au>,
"jim.cromie@gmail.com" <jim.cromie@gmail.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@amd.com>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
"tzimmermann@suse.de" <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
"johannes@sipsolutions.net" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/9] drivers core: Add support for Wifi band RF mitigations
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:07:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18dfe989-2610-4234-ade2-ffbc2f233c19@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR12MB2619591A7706A30362E11DC5E42EA@DM6PR12MB2619.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
> > 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.
How much overhead is this adding? How deep do you need to go to find
the BIOS does not support it? And how often is this called?
Where do we want to add complexity? In the generic API? Or maybe a
little deeper in the ACPI specific code?
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-04 13:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-30 10:32 [PATCH V5 0/9] Enable Wifi RFI interference mitigation feature support Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` [PATCH V5 1/9] drivers core: Add support for Wifi band RF mitigations Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` Evan Quan
2023-06-30 13:38 ` Simon Horman
2023-06-30 13:38 ` Simon Horman
2023-06-30 13:38 ` Simon Horman
2023-07-04 3:41 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:41 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:41 ` Quan, Evan
2023-06-30 16:40 ` Limonciello, Mario
2023-06-30 16:40 ` Limonciello, Mario
2023-07-01 0:25 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-01 0:25 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-01 0:25 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-04 3:25 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:25 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:25 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:40 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:40 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:53 ` Mario Limonciello
2023-07-04 3:53 ` Mario Limonciello
2023-07-01 0:19 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-01 0:19 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-01 0:19 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-04 3:30 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:30 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:30 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 13:07 ` Andrew Lunn [this message]
2023-07-04 13:07 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-04 13:07 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-06 2:58 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-06 2:58 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-06 2:58 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-06 3:09 ` Mario Limonciello
2023-07-06 3:09 ` Mario Limonciello
2023-07-06 3:09 ` Mario Limonciello
2023-06-30 10:32 ` [PATCH V5 2/9] driver core: add ACPI based WBRF mechanism introduced by AMD Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` Evan Quan
2023-07-01 0:51 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-01 0:51 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-01 0:51 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-04 3:24 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:24 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:24 ` Quan, Evan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` [PATCH V5 3/9] cfg80211: expose nl80211_chan_width_to_mhz for wide sharing Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` [PATCH V5 4/9] wifi: mac80211: Add support for ACPI WBRF Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` Evan Quan
2023-06-30 14:08 ` kernel test robot
2023-06-30 14:08 ` kernel test robot
2023-07-01 1:02 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-01 1:02 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-01 1:02 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-07-04 3:12 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:12 ` Quan, Evan
2023-07-04 3:12 ` Quan, Evan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` [PATCH V5 5/9] drm/amd/pm: update driver_if and ppsmc headers for coming wbrf feature Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` [PATCH V5 6/9] drm/amd/pm: setup the framework to support Wifi RFI mitigation feature Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` [PATCH V5 7/9] drm/amd/pm: add flood detection for wbrf events Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` Evan Quan
2023-06-30 14:29 ` kernel test robot
2023-06-30 14:29 ` kernel test robot
2023-06-30 10:32 ` [PATCH V5 8/9] drm/amd/pm: enable Wifi RFI mitigation feature support for SMU13.0.0 Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` [PATCH V5 9/9] drm/amd/pm: enable Wifi RFI mitigation feature support for SMU13.0.7 Evan Quan
2023-06-30 10:32 ` Evan Quan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=18dfe989-2610-4234-ade2-ffbc2f233c19@lunn.ch \
--to=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=Alexander.Deucher@amd.com \
--cc=Christian.Koenig@amd.com \
--cc=Evan.Quan@amd.com \
--cc=Lijo.Lazar@amd.com \
--cc=Mario.Limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=Xinhui.Pan@amd.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=andrealmeid@igalia.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bellosilicio@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=jingyuwang_vip@163.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mdaenzer@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=trix@redhat.com \
--cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.