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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 05:22:47PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 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.

Existing ones can not go away (or change), but we do not have to add new
ones.

> 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.

configfs?