On 28/09/10 09:18, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
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?
For a device to be called MMC, it has to follow the MMC protocol, which
hides the flash from the user and looks like a block device by
definition. Basically, if it's not a raw flash chip, it's going to have
some translation layer. How well this translation layer treats the
flash will probably depend on the vendor of the card.
Henry
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
