Re: [PATCH v14 1/2] drm: add kms driver for loongson display controller

[Sui Jingfeng]

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.