[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