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

[Sui Jingfeng]

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 ?