On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 21:03 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 15:19 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > On Sat, 2016-08-20 at 15:03 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > static const char* const valid_modargs[] = {
> > > "path",
> > > + "disable_profile_hfp",
> >
> > We try to avoid negative option names on the basis that double
> > negatives are not nice ("disable_foo=no"), so I'd prefer
> > "enable_profile_hfp".
>
> Hmm, maybe that's not a good name, if the option only affects HFP HF
> support, and not HFP AG. Would "enable_profile_hfp_hf" work? It's
> pretty awful from user-friendliness perspective, but I have trouble
> coming up with better names.
As long as I can put a comment saying it was your suggestion ...
However, yes, I can do it. I don't really see it as a huge problem.
descriptive options aren't bad just because they're long (unless
they're 100s of characters long).
James
