[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.
>
>