Re: [PATCH] clk: imx: imx93: introduce clk_bypassed module parameter

[Peng Fan <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>]

On 5/10/2023 5:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this email' button
> 
> 
> 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.

I just wanna use the module parateter to give user a choice to choose
to bypass some clocks. There are 100+ clocks in the driver. Different 
user may wanna different configuration. With device tree, it is
not flexible.Such as user A may wanna bypass clock X, Y; user B may
wanna bypass clock Z.

With module parameter, I could easily set it in bootargs.

But anyway if this is not preferred, I need to find other way.

Thanks,
Peng.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h