www.coridium.us/forum

>from the help line
>I am trying to store one persistant integer variable for my GPS
>control program. Simple test programs work but not in my full
>program. The compiler reports my code occupying 13K or $3400 words.
>This should put the top of my code at ~$6400 according to the help
>file memory map. I am not quite clear from the help for "Write"
>whether I have to have a clear 4K ($1000) block free or whether
>alignment has to be on $1000 hex boundaries. I have no Data
>allocations and minimal String Constants. Wherever I put the start
>of my subblock I either am obviously overwriting my code (below
>$6400) or I get a Data Abort error at run time. I use the minimum
>subblock size (256) as I only have one integer to store.

The User Manual lays out the memory map for the Flash. Blocks have to
be erased and "prepared" on $1000 hex boundaries.

So in your case it would probably be easier to copy the String
contents back into the block after you erase $7000. You can not use a
string function to do it, as the individual strings will be seperated
by 0's. So declare a String Array, but copy elements by--

DIM SaveStrings(128)

For i=0 to 127 by 4
SaveStrings(i) = *($7e00 + i*4)
next i

' write your value

Write ($7e00, SaveStrings, 512)

I haven't tried this, let us know how it works

PS remember the Flash is only rated for 100K writes, so don't be doing
it all the time.

Thanks for the clarification and suggestions. However even if I set the base for
the Write to $7000 I get a Data Abort message on execution irrespective of
whether I set the subblock to 0 ir 256. It seems the processor somehow knows
that block is in use.

I think I need to find some other way besides using a persistant variable to
solve my problem. I probably should have used the Express rather than the Mite
so as to have more room in Flash. How about having a SuperMite card using the
LPC 2106, but physically similar to the Mite to give the convenience of a single
board solution with the advantages of the larger Flash, RAM, and Xtal clock?

>However even if I set
>the base for the Write to $7000 I get a Data Abort message on
>execution irrespective of whether I set the subblock to 0 ir 256. It
>seems the processor somehow knows that block is in use.

It really should work, though my example should not have had the by 4
in the FOR statement. As for the call with by 0, that forces the
sector to be erased. The problem being if you call with a write to the
same sector, it assumes it was already erased. You can look at the
data in the Flash with the @addr typed into the enter line.

>How about having a SuperMite card using the LPC 2106, but physically
>similar to the Mite to give the convenience of a single board
>solution with the advantages of the larger Flash, RAM, and Xtal >clock?

You could add a 24LC02 or similar, a couple wires and 50 cents or less.

As for an ARMmite with a 2106, you would lose ADs and the battery
backed up clock. But the reason we don't is, the volume demand is not
there. We would consider doing a "special" but you would have to order
10 or more units at a time, and it would get a snapshot of the current
firmware, with no promise of firmware upgrades.

Since this topic came up the SuperPRO has been added, which has much more Flash

I can't get by the Data Abort errors whatever I do whenever my main 13K of code
is loaded.

I'd forgotten the 2106 has no A/D. I am using the A/D in this application. It is
a one off app so a special is not a solution. The 24LC02 certainly would be a
way to go. However I am zeroing in on a solution to my problem that does not
require persistant storage.

Anyway thanks for the help.

--- In ARMexpress@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Grubb" <rgrubb@...> wrote:
>
>
> I think I need to find some other way besides using a persistant
variable to solve my problem. I probably should have used the Express
rather than the Mite so as to have more room in Flash. How about having
a SuperMite card using the LPC 2106, but physically similar to the Mite
to give the convenience of a single board solution with the advantages
of the larger Flash, RAM, and Xtal clock?
>

I second that motion!