Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] soc: qcom: socinfo: Expose custom attributes

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Greg,

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 08:16:16AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 12:13:59AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 07:57:42AM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > On Thu 21 Feb 04:18 PST 2019, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:28:29AM +0530, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> > > > > The Qualcomm socinfo provides a number of additional attributes,
> > > > > add these to the socinfo driver and expose them via debugfs
> > > > > functionality.
> > > > 
> > > > What is the use case for these attributes ? I fear they will be used in
> > > > production systems, and that would require debugfs in production, which
> > > > isn't a good idea. If you need to expose those attributes for anything
> > > > else than debugging then we need a proper API, likely sysfs-based.
> > > 
> > > The use case of these attributes, beyond development/debugging, are
> > > unfortunately somewhat unknown and is the reason why they where moved to
> > > debugfs from the earlier attempts to upstream this.
> > > 
> > > I think the production requirements at hand prohibits debugfs to be
> > > present, so attributes that are required beyond development/debugging
> > > purposes would have to be migrated out to sysfs - but the idea here is
> > > that such migration would have come with the missing motivation to add
> > > them there today.
> > 
> > If the use case is just debug/development, would it be enough to print
> > this information in the kernel log at boot time ? I may be a bit
> > paranoid, but I always worry about API abuse :-(
> 
> Putting stuff in debugfs should be fine.  No system should ever rely on
> debugfs for a properly running system as it is being disabled on almost
> all "sane" systems (Android included).  If a vendor relies on this
> information for a properly working system, then it does not belong in
> debugfs.

There's certainly no disagreement about that, my concern is about
vendors who will enable debugfs to access information they need just
because it's there. Do I assume correctly we can "break the debugfs ABI"
in mainline by changing the format of the information if needed ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart