On Wed, 04. Jun 01:28, Ping-Ke Shih wrote: > Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Urgh, this one wasn't caught as my system doesn't have any SAR available > > from ACPI. But it would be falsely triggered, too. If I saw it earlier, > > I'd better prepared this as a followup patch in a series though.. > > > > Good catch. > > There are two consumers. One is rtw89_apply_sar_acpi() which should not > assert wiphy_lock, but the other rtw89_apply_sar_common() can be. As I know, > the assertion is added for the latter one initially. > > Another way is to assert the lock under condition of > test_bit(RTW89_FLAG_PROBE_DONE, rtwdev->flags) > Ok, thanks! So I'll fold this reworked patch and the other one [1] into a series and send them out. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20250603144614.175003-1-pchelkin@xxxxxxxxx/
