[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a6cneoco.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:22:47 +0300
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] add support for enum module parameters
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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.
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.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists