IF it works as you say (and there are not page size considerations as well)
then could you not write in 15 or 16 byte blocks?
Say data + 1 or two status bytes per block.

14 bytes requires ( 14 + 1 )/15 =3D 1 block
128 requires 128/14 =3D 9.14 =3D 10 blocks =3D 10 x 15 =3D 150 bytes.

Using 130 byte blocks as you proposed wastes 112 or 2 bytes for actual data
lengths of 14 or 128 bytes.

Using 15 byte blocks wastes 1 or 22 bytes for 14 or 128 byte actual data
lengths.

Which system is more memory efficient depends on the ratio of the number of
14 and 128 byte blocks.

Using 16 byte blocks is probably easier on the brain.

______________

For greater efficiency the first block could specify if it was a single 14
byte block or a 128 byte block and in the latter case could pack all data
words except the first full.
Don't get out of sync :-(.

If eg a 16 byte block was used.
- 14 =3D 14 + 2 wasted
=3D 14/16 utilised =3D 87.5% utilised.

- 128 =3D 14 + 7.125 x 16
=3D 9 x 16 bit blocks =3D 16 bits wasted =3D 88.9% utilised

___________________

Even if page size considerations require you to buffer to RAM the above may
still make storage in Flash easier to manage. Or not.

______________________

2:30am. I wonder if that all made sense?


                   Russell

"If a packet hits a pocket ...
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.