ACK/Cmnt: [SRU][N][PATCH 0/1] rtw89: Support hardware rfkill

[Jacob Martin]

On 4/20/25 10:11 PM, En-Wei Wu wrote:
> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2077384
> 
> [Impact]
> With RTL8852BE and "Control WLAN radio" (in Dell BIOS setting) on, wifi
> function is not be disabled when we plug in the Ethernet cable. The
> issue is because the rtw89 driver doesn't have the hardware rfkill
> mechanism.
> 
> [Fix]
> Backport the Realtek patch in linux-next:
> 
> 0b38e6277aed wifi: rtw89: add support for hardware rfkill
> 
> This patch also adds the rfkill functionalities to RTL8852BT, which is
> currently
> not supported by Ubuntu kernels. So we omit the modification on
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt.c.
> 
> [Test Plan]
> 1. Enable Control WLAN radio in BIOS setting
> 2. Boot into OS
> 2. Plug in Ethernet cable
> 3. Run `rfkill list` and see if the `phy0` is hard blocked (hard
>     blocked: yes on success)
> 
> [Where problems could occur]
> This patch adds the functionality of hardware rfkill by continuously
> polling the register of GPIO pin status and determines whether to
> block the device based on the value read. If the register read is
> somehow buggy, it may cause that the device is blocked unexpectedly.
> 
> Kuan-Chung Chen (1):
>    wifi: rtw89: add support for hardware rfkill
> 
>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c     | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.h     |  9 +++
>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/mac80211.c | 17 +++++
>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/reg.h      | 24 +++++++
>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8851b.c | 11 +++
>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852a.c | 11 +++
>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852b.c | 11 +++
>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852c.c | 11 +++
>   drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8922a.c | 11 +++
>   9 files changed, 173 insertions(+)
> 

Patch "wifi: rtw89: add support for hardware rfkill" is in mainline as 
of v6.12-rc1, so `linux-next` can be dropped from the backport provenance.

It would be nice if the backport note of "modifying rtw8852a.c due to 
lack of unnecessary patches" was a bit more specific, e.g. was it simply 
a matter of adjusting context unrelated to this patch? From what I can 
tell comparing the diffs, it looks like this was the case.

Acked-by: Jacob Martin <jacob.martin at canonical.com>