On 5/22/23 21:13, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
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?
Turn down the flames a little bit, okay? ;-)
What I'm describing is simply the kernel convention. Try grepping the
commit log of linux: you can see almost all mentions of "Loongson 7A" is
just referring to the manual which is named like that; that "LS3A" only
ever appear as part of some board name; and that "LS2K" only briefly
appearing when mentioned together with LS7A, maybe that's emphasis on
the SoC's bridge part. "Loongson [123]" and "LS7A" are clearly the
majority there.
But, as the convention was established by Huacai and I'm only
reiterating his rules, you may instead just check with him and not
continue the boring debate with me. Meanwhile maybe keeping all "LS3A"
and/or "LS2K" is kind of acceptable, given such naming is etched right
on the chip's packaging; I'd follow whatever Huacai mandates.
--
WANG "xen0n" Xuerui
Linux/LoongArch mailing list: https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/
