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
