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

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 08:13:47AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> + linux-wireless, netdev
> 
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 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.
> 
> Wireless drivers would also desperately need to pass device specific
> parameters at (or before) probe time. And not only debug parameters but
> also configuration parameters, for example firmware memory allocations
> schemes (optimise for features vs number of clients etc) and whatnot.
> 
> Any ideas how to implement that? Is there any prior work for anything
> like this? This is pretty hard limiting usability of upstream wireless
> drivers and I really want to find a proper solution.

Again, configfs?  That should be what that subsystem was designed for...

thanks,

greg k-h