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.

--
David Hendricks (dhendrix)
Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.