Lpc2000

Why would anyone want to use FAT12 on an SD card that's larger than 
16 or 32MB anyway?  FAT-12 was great for floppy disks, to save that 
few dozen KB on the FAT table because you only had 2MB to work with 
in the first place, but anything past 32MB and you get into huge 
sector sizes.  A 256MB card would have 64KB sector size!  Since FAT-
16 is easier to implement, why wouldn't you just stick with that?

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Curtis" <plc@r...> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill, 
> 
> > A pretty good, open-source, no-pay FAT layer is available at 
> > <http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~pje/rdcf2.txt>.  The 
> > implementation there is limited to FAT16 but can be extended 
> > and has a lot of nice features.
> 
> FAT12 is more complex than FAT16 when dealing with FAT 12-bit FAT
> entries that span a sector.  A lot of SD cards are formatted FAT12 
by
> default, so FAT16 is no good...  Its requirements are also pretty 
high,
> requiring a 1K static buffer.  The PRLLC implementation (and mine 
for
> that matter) can run with a 512-byte static or dynamic buffer.
> 
> I'll take a look at this.  It's something that I didn't find using
> Google, which is why I wrote my own implementation that is now 
part of
> NetBASIC.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Paul Curtis, Rowley Associates Ltd  http://www.rowley.co.uk
> CrossWorks for MSP430, ARM, AVR and now MAXQ processors
>