On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 08:13:47AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > + linux-wireless, netdev > > Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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. > > Wireless drivers would also desperately need to pass device specific > parameters at (or before) probe time. And not only debug parameters but > also configuration parameters, for example firmware memory allocations > schemes (optimise for features vs number of clients etc) and whatnot. > > Any ideas how to implement that? Is there any prior work for anything > like this? This is pretty hard limiting usability of upstream wireless > drivers and I really want to find a proper solution. Again, configfs? That should be what that subsystem was designed for... thanks, greg k-h
