[EXT] Re: [PATCH v12 net-next 12/15] net: mvpp2: add BM protection underrun feature support

Marcin Wojtas mw at semihalf.com
Thu Feb 11 14:13:24 EST 2021


Hi,

czw., 11 lut 2021 o 15:19 Andrew Lunn <andrew at lunn.ch> napisał(a):
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 08:22:19AM +0000, Stefan Chulski wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: <stefanc at marvell.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 11:48:17 +0200
> > >
> > > >
> > > > +static int bm_underrun_protect = 1;
> > > > +
> > > > +module_param(bm_underrun_protect, int, 0444);
> > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(bm_underrun_protect, "Set BM underrun protect
> > > > +feature (0-1), def=1");
> > >
> > > No new module parameters, please.
> >
> > Ok, I would remove new module parameters.
> > By the way why new module parameters forbitten?
>
> Historically, module parameters are a bad interface for
> configuration. Vendors have stuffed all sorts of random junk into
> module parameters. There is little documentation. Different drivers
> can have similar looking module parameters which do different
> things. Or different module parameters, which actually do the same
> thing. But maybe with slightly different parameters.
>
> We get a much better overall result if you stop and think for a
> while. How can this be made a generic configuration knob which
> multiple vendors could use? And then add it to ethtool. Extend the
> ethtool -h text and the man page. Maybe even hack some other vendors
> driver to make use of it.
>
> Or we have also found out, that pushing back on parameters like this,
> the developers goes back and looks at the code, and sometimes figures
> out a way to automatically do the right thing, removing the
> configuration knob, and just making it all simpler for the user to
> use.

I think of 2 alternatives:
* `ethtool --set-priv-flags` - in such case there is a question if
switching this particular feature in runtime is a good idea.
* New DT/ACPI property - it is a hardware feature after all, so maybe
let the user decide whether to enable it on the platform description
level.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Marcin



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list