Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: i787e41f1:Fastmail
Date:   Wed, 10 May 2023 11:13:51 +0200
From:   Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Cc:     "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>,
        "abelvesa@kernel.org" <abelvesa@kernel.org>,
        "mturquette@baylibre.com" <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        "sboyd@kernel.org" <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        "shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        "kernel@pengutronix.de" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        "festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        "linux-clk@vger.kernel.org" <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: imx: imx93: introduce clk_bypassed module parameter
Message-ID: <2023051027-wages-feminine-cb5d@gregkh>
References: <20230504085506.504474-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
 <2023050410-rejoin-vocation-8560@gregkh>
 <DU0PR04MB9417FE67ABF9A2B1EE4DEBA088779@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DU0PR04MB9417FE67ABF9A2B1EE4DEBA088779@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 07:49:20AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> 
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: imx: imx93: introduce clk_bypassed module
> > parameter
> > 
> > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:55:06PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> > >
> > > With the clk names specified in clk_bypassed module parameter, give
> > > user an option to bypass the clk from managing them by Linux kernel.
> > 
> > As I said on another email, no, please do not add new module parameters
> > for drivers, this is not the 1990s
> 
> After a search of the list,
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=module_param
> 
> I still see many drivers are adding module_param.

And they should not be doing so as it is almost always not a good idea
(note, some subsystems, like sound, do require it, as that's the api
they use, so this is not a blanket statement.)

> Is this is strict ban that new platform driver should not add
> module_param?

You need to really really really justify, and document in the changelog
text, why all of the other methods of configuring a platform driver will
not work in order to have it considered.

thanks,

greg k-h