On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Stefan Tauner < stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:55:37 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Am 16.09.2013 15:52 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 03:36:47 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Am 16.09.2013 02:40 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:46:48 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Am 15.09.2013 20:14 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 04:15:44 +0200 > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote: > >> Am 12.09.2013 22:40 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
Regarding ROM I have the same problems here as above in "ROM layout", although here it is less severe, because it does not allow for so many interpretations with the given context. So I think I could very well live with "ROM image" for VFRTFCC and "ROM image file" for the files named by -r/-w/-v parameters. I would still prefer an alternative if we can come up with one that. chip (or flash) image (file), complete or (full) image (file), chip/flash content (file), ...
Maybe someone else can weigh in. Otherwise I'd say we use what we have at this point in the discussion.
David?
Perhaps a glossary in the man page would be useful?
"Image" sounds good IMO, or least bad. I don't think English has a single word that is perfect for this, so we'll just be careful about context. I suggest using "image" to describe the software bits which compose a complete object. It may have regions within it and its size might not match the physical ROM size. A "ROM image" is an image which exists on ROM. "Image file" is an image which exists as a file. We typically manipulate images in memory so those qualifiers are not necessary until the image is written to storage.
But please let's please avoid VFRTFCC :-)
What about "partial image" or "region image" for files specified with
--include region:file?
For those the image problem stated above is not so severe, but we should distinguish them too to aid understanding of the differences of the whole-chip images vs. files, else region image would be fine.
sub-image? chunk image? region image? partial image? Lots of possible names come to mind. "region image file" has the advantage of making it clear that we're dealing with a file, and that it has something to do with regions.
As I tried to explain, I have no problem with the "region image" apart from the image/file ambiguity. "region image file" is totally fine with me.
Be careful not to conflate the concept of an image with individual regions (or maybe I already have). A region is simply an address range inside of an image.