Ok ... let's try this from a different angle.
Was there a design reason for -not- putting RAM, ROM and FLASH
into separate address spaces (i.e. "cards")? It seems like it would
have been very convenient if they were.
--
-Richard M. Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
Jim Schram wrote in message <20684@palm-dev-forum>...
>
>At 4:45 PM -0700 2000/08/10, Richard Hartman wrote:
>>I had just assumed that since (at least in originally) RAM
>>and ROM were on different cards (ROM was on the motherboard
>>and the RAM was plugged in to a slot), there would be a different
>>card number...
>
>Actually, RAM and ROM have always been together on the same card. We didn't
start putting either on the motherboard until we developed products with no
card slot at all. And even then it's just a simple matter of configuring the
DragonBall chip select registers appropriately. Incidentally, Handspring's
Visor is the first and only product to support any card other than #0.
>
>
>>So the "card number" is just the high 4 bits? Hmm... Not
>>nearly so useful ...
>
>Well, it's actually a bit more complicated than that. But fundamentally,
that's the idea.
>
>
>>although you -could- put the ROM and
>>FLASH and RAM into different address spaces, there would
>>be a lot of wasted space that way...
>
>The ROM and RAM *are* in different address spaces, so I'm not sure what you
mean by that... there are hard limits to the maximum size of both ROM and
RAM areas... don't expect the Palm OS to address 1 Gig of RAM any time
soon... ;o)
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim Schram
>Palm Incorporated
>Partner Engineering
>
>
>
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
