MicroSD Cards and SDFS


Closed Thread
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wellton, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,924


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Default

    PBP 2.60 and SDFS work fine together. I have not had to change anything.

    I do plan to try to make use of the ARRAY WRITE feature of PBP 2.60 with the next SD project. If that works like I think it will tehn the basic routines will be much cleaner. Imagine changing the SD write array length on the fly!!!
    Dave
    Always wear safety glasses while programming.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Miami, Florida USA
    Posts
    704


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mackrackit View Post
    PBP 2.60 and SDFS work fine together. I have not had to change anything.
    Nice !! What about programming memory space? Is it true that PBP 2.60 compiles the program with less programming words in a more compact manner? SDFS takes many words of programming space. I think the FAT16 version takes around 12k words (I don't remember the exact number). Do you see any space utilization improvements with PBP 2.60?


    Quote Originally Posted by mackrackit View Post
    I do plan to try to make use of the ARRAY WRITE feature of PBP 2.60 with the next SD project. If that works like I think it will tehn the basic routines will be much cleaner. Imagine changing the SD write array length on the fly!!!
    Are you referring to the FAT_BUFFER_SIZE constant?

    Code:
    ' Create constants and variables used by the FAT subroutines
    FAT_BUFFER_SIZE	Con	MEDIA_SECTOR_SIZE
    I replaced its value from 512 to 16 bytes in my program because it was killing my 18F4550 RAM memory. I left MEDIA_SECTOR_SIZE equal to 512 like it should be.

    Robert
    "No one is completely worthless. They can always serve as a bad example."

    Anonymous

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wellton, U.S.A.
    Posts
    5,924


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Default

    I do not really have a good comparison but looking at the LST files between to similar programs. I have 2.50 on one machine and 2.6 on another.

    The PBP 2.5 code is using 23196 Bytes
    The PBP 2.6 code is using 16220 Bytes

    Both are with an 18F4550

    This is the part I think ARRAY WRITE will be handy for
    Code:
    ' Write to file
        FAT_src[0] = "X"
        FAT_src[1] = "B"
        FAT_src[2] = "C"
        FAT_count = 3
        Gosub FSfwrite
    Dave
    Always wear safety glasses while programming.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Miami, Florida USA
    Posts
    704


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mackrackit View Post
    I do not really have a good comparison but looking at the LST files between to similar programs. I have 2.50 on one machine and 2.6 on another.

    The PBP 2.5 code is using 23196 Bytes
    The PBP 2.6 code is using 16220 Bytes

    Both are with an 18F4550
    Nice! Two similar programs and you got a reduction of 30% out of 23196 Bytes from your PBP 2.50 program. That sounds very encouraging for me to upgrade to PBP 2.60 .

    Robert
    "No one is completely worthless. They can always serve as a bad example."

    Anonymous

Members who have read this thread : 0

You do not have permission to view the list of names.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts