>On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:04 PM MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >Sender : Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >Date : 2023-01-24 00:37 (GMT+9)
>> >Title : [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Fix build issues with devfreq disabled
>> >
>> >From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> >The existing no-op shims for when PM_DEVFREQ (or an individual governor)
>> >only do half the job. The governor specific config/tuning structs need
>> >to be available to avoid compile errors in drivers using devfreq.
>> >
>> >Fixes: 6563f60f14cb ("drm/msm/gpu: Add devfreq tuning debugfs")
>> >Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Doesn't this imply that DRM_MSM should depend on PM_DEVFREQ ?
>>
>> It appears that gpu/drm/msm/DRM_MSM uses PM_DEVFREQ without actually
>> declaring the dependency on PM_DEVFREQ.
>> You cannot use SIMPLE_ONDEMAND without DEVFREQ.
>
>Possibly that would resolve some issues, and that might have been my
>mistake in assuming that depending on SIMPLE_ONDEMAND implied a
>dependency on DEFREQ (which seems like a reasonable assumption, IMHO)
>
>But AFAICT some kernel configs that could otherwise use DRM_MSM don't
>support PM_DEVFREQ.. either way, lets solve this properly and remove
>needless dependencies on devfreq.
>
>BR,
>-R
Ok. You are enabling struct and enum only and that looks harmless.
PTAL, Chanwoo.
Acked-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cheers,
MyungJoo.
