> On 01 Jun 2015, at 12:16, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> > wrote: > > If all we are worried about the name of -kernel can we give it an alias?
in my initial implementation I aliased it to --image, but I received a strong opposition on the list, for polluting the command line, and I did not insist. I'd highly appreciate to get rid of all linux specifics for the cortex-m emulation, since they really do not apply here, and just increase the user confusion. so I reiterate my suggestion to use "--image file". > > You should define size to match the board and part with either an > error condition or padding policy. Truncating the flash to something > smaller than the part is trap for users. Perhaps something like: > > "WARNING: block device /foo/bar/blah.bin is smaller than flash for STMXXXXX" good point. > You could support both. -plfash and -kernel, the latter trumping the > former, yes, in my view "-pflash file" must be an independent option, to provide initial content to the flash area, and to provide a persistent location where to save the memory area when emulation ends. if, on top of it, -image (!) and/or -gdb are used to overwrite parts of the flash, this is completely unrelated. btw, there are microcontrollers with battery backed ram areas, I guess these should be handled similarly (just that the name -pflash is no longer appropriate). perhaps some -global properties like "device.flash_file=path", "device.persistent_ram_file=path", would be more appropriate for this. regards, Liviu
