Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 May 2023 21:13:21 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v14 1/2] drm: add kms driver for loongson display controller | From | Sui Jingfeng <> |
| |
Hi,
On 2023/5/22 18:25, WANG Xuerui wrote: > On 2023/5/22 18:17, Sui Jingfeng wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2023/5/22 18:05, WANG Xuerui wrote: >>> On 2023/5/22 17:49, Sui Jingfeng wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 2023/5/22 17:28, WANG Xuerui wrote: >>>>> On 2023/5/22 17:25, Sui Jingfeng wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2023/5/21 20:21, WANG Xuerui wrote: >>>>>>>> + * LS3A4000/LS3A5000/LS3A6000 CPU, they are equipped with >>>>>>>> on-board video RAM >>>>>>>> + * typically. While LS2K0500/LS2K1000/LS2K2000 are low cost >>>>>>>> SoCs which share >>>>>>>> + * the system RAM as video RAM, they don't has a dediacated VRAM. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CPU models are not typically prefixed with "LS", so "Loongson >>>>>>> 3A4000/3A5000/3A6000". >>>>>>> >>>>>> Here is because when you do programming, variable name should >>>>>> prefix with letters. >>>>> >>>>> Commit messages, comments, and log messages etc. are natural >>>>> language, so it's better to treat them differently. No problem to >>>>> keep code as-is IMO. >>>>> >>>> Then you get two name for a single chip, take LS7A1000 as an >>>> example. >>>> >>>> You name it as Loongson 7A1000 in commit message, and then you >>>> have to define another name in the code, say LS7A1000. >>>> >>>> "Loongson 7A1000" is too long, not as compact as LS7A1000. >>>> >>>> This also avoid bind the company name to a specific product, >>>> because a company can produce many product. >>> >>> Nah, the existing convention is "LS7Xxxxx" for bridges and "Loongson >>> 3Axxxx" for CPUs (SoCs like 2K fall under this category too). It's >>> better to stick with existing practice so it would be familiar to >>> long-time Loongson/LoongArch developers, but I personally don't >>> think it will hamper understanding if you feel like doing otherwise. >>> >> Can you explain why it is better? >> >> is it that the already existing is better ? > > It's not about subjective perception of "better" or "worse", but about > tree-wide consistency, and about reducing any potential confusion from > newcomers. I remember Huacai once pointing out that outsiders usually > have a hard time remembering "1, 2, and 3 are CPUs, some 2 are SoCs, 7 > are bridge chips", and consistently referring to the bridge chips > throughout the tree as "LS7A" helped. > > In any case, for the sake of consistency, you can definitely refer to > the CPU models in natural language like "LS3Axxxx"; just make sure to > refactor for example every occurrence in arch/loongarch and other > parts of drivers/. That's a lot of churn, though, so I don't expect > such changes to get accepted, and that's why the tree-wide consistency > should be favored over the local one. > There are document[1] which named LS7A1000 bridge chip as Loongson 7A1000 Bridge,
which is opposed to what you have said "the existing convention is LS7Xxxxx for bridges".
there are also plenty projects[2] which encode ls2k1000 as project name, which simply
don't fall into the category as you have mentioned("Loongson 3Axxxx").
See [1][2] for reference, how to explain this phenomenon then?
[1] https://loongson.github.io/LoongArch-Documentation/Loongson-7A1000-usermanual-EN
[2] https://github.com/zhaozhi0810/pmon-ls2k1000-2022
| |