On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 05:22:47PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 03:30:32PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
Hey, I've sent this before, ages ago, but haven't really followed through with it. I still think it would be useful for many scenarios where a plain number is a clumsy interface for a module param.
Thoughts?
We should not be adding new module parameters anyway (they operate on code, not data/devices), so what would this be used for?
I think it's just easier to use names than random values, and this also gives you range check on the input.
I also keep telling people not to add new module parameters, but it's not like they're going away anytime soon.
Existing ones can not go away (or change), but we do not have to add new ones.
If there's a solution to being able to pass device specific debug parameters at probe time, I'm all ears. At least i915 has a bunch of things which can't really be changed after probe, when debugfs for the device is around. Module parameters aren't ideal, but debugfs doesn't work for this.
configfs?