On 25/07/07 20:36 +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
This code also turns the bootblock path name as a constant value.
..but I think this is a disaster. I don't think lar should know about bootblocks, it should instead offer the functionality needed for the caller to put special files in special places within the larfile.
Fair enough. I've been thinking about something like that, being able to control where in the LAR the blob goes (as well as being able to control where in memory it gets loaded to).
But seeing as though the bootblock is 1) very special, and 2) mandatory for the LAR, I don't think there is any problem in calling it out specially, especially since the position and the concept is a hard constant (for now).
Otherwise, the alternative is for the user to have to do the math, and know that they should put the bootblock at size - 16k in the LAR. That seems problematic.
It also requires that the user specify a size when the LAR is created.
Since the larfile is supposed to be 1:1 of the flash chip I think this requirement is unavoidable.
Yes, but it further breaks the 'ar' / 'tar' / 'lar' similarity.
Jordan