Now that I have been able to test the Tiny File System with the FLASH module and iron out the device specific issues, I have created a Gadgeteer Module Driver for it, but I have a question before I publish it.
Since the File System driver uses the standard module, I have used the module image from the GHI Module Driver.
Is that acceptable?
If not, what is the course of action in this scenario?
The question comes up because this is really just an alternate driver for an existing module. I had considered adding a small icon overly which will indicate the difference, but this feels wrong.
Using the picture is just fine, as long as your driver is in a different namespace (i.e. whatever you used for a manufacturer name). Adding something to visually indicate it is different on the picture makes it easy to tell which module driver you are using though. Not sure why this would “feel wrong”.
You can do anything you like, except use the GHI name, just so users are not confused between what you offer and what we do and each one is responsible for what they do
@ Gus - The module driver it self is in a new name space. Are you saying that I should replace the GHI name on the Image? While I have no issue doing that, my concern is that this would in fact be confusing since the file system module driver is targeting the GHI hardware, so I would assume that the image should be of the hardware that is being targeted.
Of course if you still feel that I should remove the GHI name from the image then I will definitely comply, I just want to make sure I am understanding correctly.
Do you want to provide a driver with file system built in rather than providing a file system to use with the driver? How solid is the file system driver? Maybe we can drop in official release?
@ Gus - I have only had the physical device FLASH module for a little more than a week now (unfortunately the one you were kind enough to send me never arrived), but so far the only problem I had was with the SPI interface to the module.
The File System itself looks pretty stable, I have tested small files, large files (over 3MB), and so far I have not had any issues. It has built in wear leveling, automatic compaction of unused clusters, full stream interface with buffering etc.
I would be happy to have GHI take the code and include it into the core driver.
I want to hear the answer to this. I agree with taylorza that the image should represent the manufacturer of the hardware being targeted, not the maker of the driver.
@ Gus - are you guys going to be interested in evaluating the flash file system, I have the Gadgeteer module driver done. Just let me know if/how you would like to handle this. I would be happy to jump on a Skype call with you or one of your software guys to discuss the code etc.
If you’re talking about the Tinyfilesystem, I effectively made some tests days ago on a mountaineer ethernet board, and also had no issues on storing there a couple of configuration files. Just one thing is not appreciated, is to use the ‘.’ (dot) in file names…Maybe it is used as a separator when stroring the FileSystemStructure…
That is great that you have got it working on another device. With regard to the issue with the ‘.’, the file system does not use ‘.’ in any special way. The only thing I can think of is that you maybe have a filename the exceeded 16 bytes and removing the ‘.’ brought the length down?
I always use a ‘.’ in my file names for all the tests I do so I am reasonably the ‘.’ would not cause an issue. Can you provide an example of the filename you used?
@ Gus - As per your recommendation, I updated the wiki with some info on the FLASH module and the Flash File System.
I hope you do not mind, but I took the liberty of updating the flash module tutorial with so basics regarding the use of the FLASH module using the standard module driver as well as a brief high-level introduction to FLASH memory in general.
