> On Dec 15, 2018, at 1:18 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 1:51 PM Jon Elson via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org > wrote: > >> On 12/15/2018 02:45 PM, Anders Nelson via cctalk wrote: >>> Serial flash has an endurance between 10K-100K writes per cell so I think >>> that would break down quickly. Wear-leveling on a serial device would be >>> very slow... >>> >>> >> If you intend to use it as main core memory on an old CPU, >> it will perform VERY poorly, as these memories need to erase >> a page at a time, and the erase takes milliseconds. So, >> writing ONE SINGLE word at a time would invoke an erase >> cycle each time, slowing it to 1/1000 or worse the speed of >> the original core memory. Also, most old CPUs have the >> memory timing built into the CPU, and can't handle a memory >> that says "wait". >> > > If you paired it with a microcontroller, you might be able to implement a > log device and then manage to logical to physical translation ala FTLs in > SSD land... but it would be ugly as heck and you'd still have the stall to > worry about when you got to the end of the erase block... better > performance, but maybe beyond a cheap uc…
And my question is why go through all of that pain when an FRAM or MRAM device can do this with no hackery? What you’re describing is the very definition of an “impedance mismatch”. You’re trying to use a block oriented device as a byte device and attempting to paper over the differences. I think the end result would be less than satisfactory in almost every measurable dimension. TTFN - Guy
