Enable capability to use >1 sector per cluster in ghostfat about tinyuf2 HOT 9 CLOSED

#define CFG_UF2_FLASH_SIZE          (256*1024*1024)
#define CFG_UF2_NUM_BLOCKS          (0x300000)       // 1.5 GB
#define CFG_UF2_SECTORS_PER_CLUSTER (64)

That's for 256MB flash, so 2x a 512MB UF2 file, and plenty for space remaining for the two text files (or for the remainder of a UF2 file with non-flash content).

Tested on RP2040, for flashing BT815-series graphics chip. (Maybe add a note on the memory required for the buffer that keeps the written block flags... CFG_UF2_FLASH_SIZE / 256 / 8 iirc? That's the bottleneck, it seems.)

from tinyuf2.

#define CFG_UF2_FLASH_SIZE          (256*1024*1024)
#define CFG_UF2_NUM_BLOCKS          (0x300000)       // 1.5 GB
#define CFG_UF2_SECTORS_PER_CLUSTER (64)

That's for 256MB flash, so 2x a 512MB UF2 file, and plenty for space remaining for the two text files (or for the remainder of a UF2 file with non-flash content).

Tested on RP2040, for flashing BT815-series graphics chip. (Maybe add a note on the memory required for the buffer that keeps the written block flags... CFG_UF2_FLASH_SIZE / 256 / 8 iirc? That's the bottleneck, it seems.)

Great, would you make an PR to add these comment along with the note. CFG_UF2_FLASH_SIZE is from original uf2 bootloader for nrf52, there is still work to generalize this project. It is still in early stage, so yeah, we will revise it and update/remove it when needed.

from tinyuf2.

@kaetemi - It was my PR that removed the large commented-out values. Sorry!

@hathach - Having the CFG_* values is important ... I am close to having self-validation code working, at least to the point I must hand it to you for proper integration. I will open a separate issue/PR for that. :)

from tinyuf2.

Yeah, that would be more practical. :)

from tinyuf2.

Can we include the tested large value combination in the comments?

from tinyuf2.

Yeha, there is still lots of TODO, we will move it to per ports/boards later on. But this look good

from tinyuf2.

Can we include the tested large value combination in the comments?

Yeah, I think having a working/tested value combination would be great. It is removed recently (probably mistaken as obsolete value). Would you mind added it, maybe along with a bit of detail on your setup e.g like this combination appear as 1.5 GBs disk and tested on abc hardware would be helpful as well.

from tinyuf2.

@henrygab ah ok, actually, I have no plan/time to remove it anytime soon. But rather will evolve slowly when needed :) I am looking forward to your PR.

from tinyuf2.

Mostly done, except for a couple build/CI steps I need help with. See PR #94.

from tinyuf2.