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. 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
