linux-kernel - RE: Re: [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Fix build issues with devfreq disabled

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:46:26 +0900
From:   MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
To:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
CC:     "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org" <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Fix build issues with devfreq
 disabled

>On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:04 PM MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Sender : Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
>> >Date : 2023-01-24 00:37 (GMT+9)
>> >Title : [PATCH] PM / devfreq: Fix build issues with devfreq disabled
>> >
>> >From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
>> >
>> >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@...omium.org>
>>
>> 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@...sung.com>

Cheers,
MyungJoo.