Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 11/11] Exynos4210: added display controller implementation

[Dmitry Solodkiy]

Dear Dmitry,

  Thank you for feedback. 
  As you probably know, there is some decision making process in large 
corporations.
  We'll discuss naming conventions on project meeting, make proposal, send it 
to peers, get approve and apply.

Regards,
     Dmitry Solodkiy,
     Mobile SW PL, Advanced Software Group,
     Moscow R&D center, Samsung Electronics

-----Original Message-----
From: Dmitry Zhurikhin [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:50 PM
To: Evgeny Voevodin
Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden; Mitsyanko Igor; address@hidden; Kirill 
Batuzov
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 11/11] Exynos4210: added display controller 
implementation

On 12/19/2011 03:53 PM, Evgeny Voevodin wrote:
> From: Mitsyanko Igor <address@hidden>
> 
> Exynos4210 display controller (FIMD) has 5 hardware windows with alpha and
> chroma key blending functions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Voevodin <address@hidden>
Hello!  Nice work you've done there.  Seeing you took our LCD
implementation as a starting point I've got a small suggestion (don't
consider it a blocker or anything) to make the names of your devices
more generic.

Glancing through the public documents Dmitry gave a link to I had a
feeling that they are pretty much the same as used in S5C-based devices
(and from my memory in S3C-based, at least SMDK6410, as well).  What I
noticed is that some new registers appeared in many devices like this
one or ADC and keypad while documentation for most devices remained the
same literally (I think only interrupt controller is much different from
that used in S5PC110 and am not sure about DMA controller as it uses
PL330's as well but seems in different configuration).  This probably
means and is logical that Samsung uses mostly the same basic devices for
its SOCs.  Then I think there is no point giving them device-specific
names.  How much Exynos4210-special details are coded here?  Is it hard
to separate them to support e.g. S5PC110 FIMD with the same device?

Next year Samsung will come out with S6C, Exynos5210, F-something or
whatever (you should know better) and it will feature once again the
same basic devices with once again slightly updated interfaces.  Then
your colleagues who will work on implementing support of these boards in
QEMU will either invent their own way of emulation for pretty much the
same devices or will need to rename already present in QEMU ones to be
used inside of their new board emulation.  So what do you think about
naming them more generic from the start?

        Dmitry