Hi Heinrich, On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 at 13:43, Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > On 4/28/23 21:21, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 at 01:41, Heinrich Schuchardt > > <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote: > >> > >> Add a man-page for the cp command. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> > >> --- > >> doc/usage/cmd/cp.rst | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> doc/usage/index.rst | 1 + > >> 2 files changed, 84 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 doc/usage/cmd/cp.rst > >> > >> diff --git a/doc/usage/cmd/cp.rst b/doc/usage/cmd/cp.rst > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000000..897c0bb7df > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/doc/usage/cmd/cp.rst > >> @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ > >> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+: > >> + > >> +cp command > >> +========== > >> + > >> +Synopsis > >> +-------- > >> + > >> +:: > >> + > >> + mm source target count > >> + mm.b source target count > >> + mm.w source target count > >> + mm.l source target count > >> + mm.q source target count > > > > Is this the cp or the mm command? > > Thanks for reviewing. It must be cp. > > > > > I think it is better to do: > > > > mm.<size> > > > > or something like that, to avoid repetition > > We cannot completely avoid repetition as 'cp' without postfix exists. > With size I would associate a number. > Having to look into multiple places to find out that there is a cp.q > form is not helpful.
You could do: cp[.b | w | l | q] I suppose But I agree it is a bit painful cp[.<size>] might be better > > I think the current format is the easiest way to see at a glance how to > use the command. > > > > >> + > >> +Description > >> +----------- > >> + > >> +The cp command is used to copy *count* words of memory from the *source* > > > > To me it is confusing to use the term 'words' here. A word typically > > means a machine word in a computer, e.g. 32- or 64-bits. > > > > How about just referring to 'transfer size' or 'access size'? > > When hearing 'transfer size' I would think of the total number of bytes > being transferred. How about 'chunk'? It is better than word or transfer size, yes. But chunk seems like a group of things and isn't quite right, I think. Do you not like 'access size'? If not, then chunk is OK I suppose. Regards, Simon