Is FPGA code called firmware?

Wow, I wouldn't use such a word...

stiffware
noun

       1. computing.
             Software that is difficult or impossible to modify because 
it has been customized or there is incomplete documentation, etc.


Well, googlefight can confirm:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=configware&word2=stiffware

Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> reiner@hartenstein.de schrieb:
> 
> 
>>[...] Configuration code, however, is NOT an instruction schedule.
>>It is a structural issue (but NOT procedural).
>>
>>[...] A typical configware
>>compilation process uses placement and routing, however, NOT
>>instruction scheduling.
> 
> 
> Now, this discussion is going to become really interesting with multi
> context FPGAs. In that case there is a stream of very few very large
> instructions.
> 
> Configware is ok, but I like stiffware better because it fits nicely
> between software, firmware and hardware.
> 
> Kolja Sulimma

Marko wrote:
> Traditionally, firmware was defined as software that resided in ROM.
> So, my question is, what do you call FPGA code?  Is "firmware"
> appropriate? 

James Morrison wrote:
> The answer I came up with was "stiffware".

reiner wrote:
> FPGA code I call configware code - the output of configware compilation
> of design flow

At Pixel Velocity, we call it 'gateware'.


---
Joe Samson
Pixel Velocity

I've heard it referred to as gateware for a long time where I work. I
think that's a fine name.

> call it 'gateware'

same at Starbridge Sys.

I've called it "gateware" for the last 15 years.

Brannon wrote:
> I've heard it referred to as gateware for a long time where I work. I
> think that's a fine name.

I fifth the motion.
All in favor of gateware say aye.

      -- Mike Treseler

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:52:42 -0800, Mike Treseler
<mike_treseler@comcast.net> wrote:

>Brannon wrote:
>> I've heard it referred to as gateware for a long time where I work. I
>> think that's a fine name.
>
>I fifth the motion.
>All in favor of gateware say aye.
>
>      -- Mike Treseler

Sounds good to me.  Anything that disabuses people of the notion that
FPGA design is the same as or similar to software design meets with my
approval.

Bob Perlman
Cambrian Design Works
http://www.cambriandesign.com

Bob Perlman wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:52:42 -0800, Mike Treseler
> <mike_treseler@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Brannon wrote:
>>
>>>I've heard it referred to as gateware for a long time where I work. I
>>>think that's a fine name.
>>
>>I fifth the motion.
>>All in favor of gateware say aye.
>>
>>     -- Mike Treseler
> 
> 
> Sounds good to me.  Anything that disabuses people of the notion that
> FPGA design is the same as or similar to software design meets with my
> approval.
> 
> Bob Perlman
> Cambrian Design Works
> http://www.cambriandesign.com

Yea verily.  I do a lot of embedded software development, and a bit of 
FPGA design.  While Verilog may bear a passing resemblance to C the 
thought processes that go into FPGA design vs. software design are 
considerably different.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google?  See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

Brannon wrote:

> I've heard it referred to as gateware for a long time where I work. I
> think that's a fine name.
> 
I think I'll start using that -- at least where I think it has a chance 
to stick.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google?  See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

Mike Treseler wrote:
> Brannon wrote:
> > I've heard it referred to as gateware for a long time where I work. I
> > think that's a fine name.
>
> I fifth the motion.
> All in favor of gateware say aye.
>
>       -- Mike Treseler

aye,

For me the biggest hurlde of learning to utilize VHDL was programming
my brain to not think of it as a programming language. Then everything
began to fall into place.

-Isaac