On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 05:22:47PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?
