Re: [V9 1/9] drivers core: Add support for Wifi band RF mitigations

["Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@amd.com>]

On 8/19/2023 5:50 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 05:49:14PM -0500, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/18/2023 4:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:26:11AM +0800, Evan Quan wrote:
>>>>    drivers/base/Makefile                         |   1 +
>>>>    drivers/base/wbrf.c                           | 280 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Why is a wifi-specific thing going into drivers/base/?
>>>
>>> confused,
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>
>> The original problem statement was at a high level 'there can be
>> interference between different devices operating at high frequencies'. The
>> original patches introduced some ACPI library code that enabled a mitigated
>> for this interference between mac80211 devices and amdgpu devices.
>>
>> Andrew Lunn wanted to see something more generic, so the series has morphed
>> into base code for things to advertise frequencies in use and other things
>> to listen to frequencies in use and react.
>>
>> The idea is supposed to be that if the platform knows that these mitigations
>> are needed then the producers send the frequencies in use, consumers react
>> to them.  The AMD implementation of getting this info from the platform
>> plugs into the base code (patch 2).
>>
>> If users don't want this behavior they can turn it off on kernel command
>> line.
>>
>> If the platform doesn't know mitigations are needed but user wants to turn
>> them on anyway they can turn it on kernel command line.
> 
> That's all fine, I don't object to that at all.  But bus/device-specific
> stuff should NOT be in drivers/base/ if at all possible (yes, we do have
> some exceptions with hypervisor.c and memory and cpu stuff) but for a
> frequency thing like this, why can't it live with the other
> wifi/frequency code in drivers/net/wireless/?
> 
> In other words, what's the benefit to having me be the maintainer of
> this, someone who knows nothing about this subsystem, other than you
> passing off that work to me?  :)
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

The reason drivers/base was proposed was because although the initial 
implementation is for producers from mac80211, Andrew pointed out that 
many other things can technically be producers and cause interference
if not properly shielded.

So by making it part of base that sets up the policy that if something 
"can" produce certain problematic harmonics that it can participate.

Whether or not other devices /will/ use this is another question though.
You need deep platform knowledge and proper equipment to diagnose a 
problem and conclude it can be helped with this kind of mitigation.

So I wonder if the right answer is to put it in drivers/net/wireless 
initially and if we come up with a need later for non wifi producers we 
can discuss moving it at that time.