[lvc-project] [PATCH rtw-next] wifi: rtw89: sar: drop assertion from rtw89_sar_set_src()

[Ping-Ke Shih]

Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin at ispras.ru> 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)


>  drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/sar.c | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/sar.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/sar.c
> index 33a4b5c23fe7..3f57881b74e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/sar.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/sar.c
> @@ -199,7 +199,6 @@ struct rtw89_sar_handler rtw89_sar_handlers[RTW89_SAR_SOURCE_NR] = {
>                 typeof(_dev) _d = (_dev);                               \
>                 BUILD_BUG_ON(!rtw89_sar_handlers[_s].descr_sar_source); \
>                 BUILD_BUG_ON(!rtw89_sar_handlers[_s].query_sar_config); \
> -               lockdep_assert_wiphy(_d->hw->wiphy);                    \
>                 _d->sar._cfg_name = *(_cfg_data);                       \
>                 _d->sar.src = _s;                                       \
>         } while (0)
> --
> 2.49.0
>