On 2023/5/25 12:09, Sui Jingfeng wrote:
Hi,
On 2023/5/23 00:40, WANG Xuerui wrote:
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? ;-)
There is no flames, its just that it need sufficient discussion when
started to contribute to community.
We want more rigorous toward to our patch.
We can't adopt irresponsible ideas, especially from someone who is
reluctant to give a
reasonable rationale and refused to discussion.
Such changes could probably made a damage to Loongson company.
As it tend to introduce self-contradictory between the code and comment.
Especially when we introduce DT support, there is no write space in
the middle the string is allowed.
'write' -> 'white'
and encode model information to the compatible string is an common
practice.
While at it, I will take it into another consideration if there are
more professional person who
is supporting your ideas and could take the responsibility for it.
Beside this, other reviews are still acceptable, thanks for the
reasonable part.
