Lpc2000

Bertrik Sikken wrote:

>Sagaert Johan wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi
>>
>>- does the efsl fat library work with SD and MMC or only with SD cards ?
>>- has anyone ported this to keil ?
>>- are there other good alternatives for a SD/MMC fat library (small
>>footprint in terms of RAM use )
>>    
>>
>
>Make sure to also check out the work done by Tom Walsh to port RDCF2
>to the LPC2xxx microcontroller. I have not actually used it yet. See
>http://openhardware.net/ under Embedded stuff / Philips LPC2000
>
>An advantage is that this FAT implementation works together with
>newlib, so you can just use standard C functions like fopen, fread
>(etc) to access the filesystem on the memory card.
>A disadvantage (as far as I know) is that it only supports FAT16.
>
>  
>
Yes, it only supports 12/16 bit FATs.  As far as I know, the only way 
you can get a Compact Flash or SD card with 32bit FATs is to format them 
under windows?  Since a primary feature of FAT32 is the long filenames, 
and long filenames are under patent (AFAIK), RDCF2 will not support 
FAT32.  I am not aware of any NAND Flash devices which are shipped with 
FAT32, FAT32 is therefore a non-issue.

RDCF2 remains under a Public Domain license.   IMO, a more practical 
license than LGPL or GPL, as it places no burden on the resulting 
product to publish anything.

FWIW, this is why I used newlib instead of uClibc, the LGPL license 
requires you to distribute (make available) the object files to the 
customer.  This is so the customer may get the original source of the 
LGPL objects, recompile and relink to build a new binary.

A rather silly requirement with an embedded system, however, that 
license term does exist.  And, if you are developing for a corporation, 
you should avoid violating licensing issues such as this.  If you are a 
hobbist and only ever intend to be the only person using the system you 
build; you will never mass market it, then you can ignore the licensing 
terms.  This is because you are the agreed end-user, however, if you 
mass market the device, the license may come back to bite you later?

Newlib is a BSD style of license (for most of it) and only requires you 
to add their copyright notice whereever  you have your (company) 
copyright notices.  Not a burden.  They merely want recognition (BSD 
authors) and disclaimer from liability.

IMHO, EFSL would be better if they dropped the LGPL license in favor of 
a BSD license.

Regards,

TomW

-- 
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------------------------------------------