Michael Schnell wrote:
On 09/27/2010 03:45 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
But there are several different interfaces to Flash storage
technology, CompactFlash (i.e. PCMCIA -> IDE/ATA) is only one of them.
Different considerations probably apply to other MTD devices (in
particular SD and its derivatives), which might make them either more
or less vulnerable to abuse.
The problem is not related with the interface. it's completely
internally within the card.
I wonder if I could have a reality check here. The thing that's
bothering me is that, for example, a CompactFlash card looks like an
IDE/ATA disc hence must have internal firmware handling wear levelling.
Similarly, an MMC card with a matched host controller looks like a
storage device so presumably the same applies.
But what is the situation with an MMC card in isolation, being driven by
bit-banging or by code in e.g. a BASIC Stamp using SPI? Do these still
look like discs?
Going back to the OP's question, there certainly used to be things like
battery-backed SRAM cards that fitted in a PCMCIA slot, if I recall
correctly Sun used them to move configuration information between
computers. Does anybody put bare Flash into a similar outline, i.e.
relying on the kernel and drivers to handle all housekeeping?
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
