[AMD Official Use Only - General]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch>
> Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2023 8:25 AM
> To: Limonciello, Mario <mario.limoncie...@amd.com>
> Cc: Quan, Evan <evan.q...@amd.com>; 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; 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-
> g...@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@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
>
> > Right now there are stubs for non CONFIG_WBRF as well as other patches
> > are using #ifdef CONFIG_WBRF or having their own stubs. Like mac80211
> > patch looks for #ifdef CONFIG_WBRF.
> >
> > I think we should pick one or the other.
> >
> > Having other subsystems #ifdef CONFIG_WBRF will make the series easier
> > to land through multiple trees; so I have a slight leaning in that
> > direction.
>
> #ifdef in C files is generally not liked because it makes build testing
> harder.
> There are more permutations to build. It is better to use
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WBTR)) {
> }
>
> so that the code is compiled, and them throw away because
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WBTR) evaluates to false.
>
> However, if the stubs are done correctly, the driver should not care. I doubt
> this is used in any sort of hot path where every instruction counts.
OK, will update as suggested.
Evan
>
> Andrew
