Hi Geert, On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:08:28PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:53 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 09:05:34PM +0200, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > > On So, Jun 26, 2022 at 09:46:42 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 03:20:10PM +0200, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Troubleshooting the above without the right tools becomes a nightmare. > > > > > > > > Having spent lots of time working in userspace recently, I can't agree > > > > more. > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback and for endorsing the utility of this patch. > > > > > > > > +static int vspd_underrun[VSPD_MAX_NUM]; > > > > > +module_param_array(vspd_underrun, int, NULL, 0444); > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(vspd_underrun, "VSPD underrun counter"); > > > > > > > > Module parameters are not meant to convey information back to userspace. > > > > This should be done through either a debugfs file or a sysfs file. Given > > > > the debugging nature of this feature, I'd recommend the former. > > > > > > It is a bit unfortunate that we have to go the debugFS route, since I > > > recall at least one Customer in the past, who disabled the debugFS in > > > the end product, since it was the only available means to meet the > > > stringent automotive requirements (w.r.t. KNL binary size). Anybody > > > who has no choice but to disable debugFS will consequently not be able > > > to take advantage of this patch in the production/release software. > > > > debugfs isn't meant to be enabled in production, so if you need a > > solution for production environment, it's not an option indeed. > > > > > If there is no alternative, then for sure I can go this way. > > > > > > However, before submitting PATCH v3, would you consider SYSFS viable > > > too, if keeping the module param is totally unacceptable? > > > > > > I was hoping to keep the number of external dependencies to the bare > > > minimum, hence the initial choice of module param. Looking forward to > > > your final suggestion/preference. > > > > sysfs would be my next recommendation. I don't think a Linux system can > > meaningfully run without sysfs, so it shouldn't be an issue > > dependency-wise. > > Indeed, you can add a device attribute. > But as that is not a debug feature, the attribute must be documented, > and becomes ABI. Thanks for the comment, that's correct -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
