Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] add support for enum module parameters
In-Reply-To: <YlgfXxjefuxiXjtC@kroah.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
References: <20220414123033.654198-1-jani.nikula@intel.com>
 <YlgfXxjefuxiXjtC@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:22:47 +0300
Message-ID: <87a6cneoco.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 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