On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Dan Williams <d...@fb.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Dan Williams <d...@fb.com> wrote: >>> +Example to perform only MEMCPY and PQ mode tests (0x01 | 0x04 = 0x05): >>> + >>> + % modprobe dmatest >>> + % echo dma0chan0 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/channel >>> + % echo 5 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/cap_mask >>> + % echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/iterations >>> + % echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/run >> >> >> Hmmm, I should have paid more attention when the debugfs support was >> initially proposed for dmatest. As it is I see duplication and >> configuration parameters getting out of sync with their module parameter >> equivalents versus just having all configuration go through module >> parameters. module_param_call() can be used for the more complex options. >> Debugfs at this point looks like overkill for what amounts to some simple >> configuration variables and a result line.
There two main issues we fight against: - test automation, where we can collect results and use them later - annoying modprobe / modprobe -r for each test case The module parameters were left to support old behaviour of the module. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
