Re: [PATCH 0/1] add support for enum module parameters

[Jani Nikula]

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.


BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center