From: Björn Stenberg <bjorn_at_haxx.se>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:21:25 +0200

Heikki Hannikainen wrote:
> - Has this been discussed in depth before? Couldn't find anything with a
> quick visual grep in the mailing list archives.

No. We've talked about it in IRC, but we haven't nailed anything down yet.

> - If configuration in rockbox would be saved to the RTC RAM, would it make
> sense to try to reverse-engineer the whole config block and store
> the config in that?

I doubt it. We'd be stuck in a boring game of catch-up until Archos decides to stop releasing new firmware versions, since each new version uses a different head tag and can potentially alter the config block layout.

> - Is there any real advantage to using the RTC RAM for configuration
> storage, over using a config file on the disk?

The only real advantage is that we can store settings immediately when they are changed without having to spin up the disk.

On the other hand, I have an idea about having the code not spin up the disk for setting writes anyway. Instead it should just set a flag, so the next time the disk is started for whatever other reason (dir browse, data read etc) the config data is stored.

Another minor (and temporary) advantage is that the RTC is less risky to write to than the disk, until we have tested and debugged the FAT write code enough to trust it.

> - Implementing a config file would require working FAT writing. What is
> the status of this, I see it would _seem_ to be at least partly
> implemented but disabled?

That's correct. It's written but not tested.

> - Should I post the (rather simple) patch for the RTC RAM viewer?

Sure, do so. Maybe we won't add it just yet, but it's better to have it here in the archive than just sitting on your disk.

-- 
Björn

Received on 2002-07-10