On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:46 PM MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >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>
Thanks, if possible, an ack to land this via msm-next would avoid
build break headaches with COMPILE_TEST=y and other more obscure
setups
BR,
-R
