Thank you, Andrej.

This this is what I suspected. It seems that I am not missing anything.

The “same size sectors” requirement usually is not an obstacle.

Kind regards,

Tomasz

From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok@nxp.com>
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 5:11 PM
To: Tomasz Jastrzębski <tdjastrzebski@wp.pl>; tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: RE: [TF-M] MCUBOOT_SWAP_USING_MOVE vs MCUBOOT_SWAP_USING_SCRATCH

Hi Tomasz,

The MCUBoot Swap using Move is preferable to the Swap using Scratch.

The only limitation: “The algorithm is limited to support sectors of the same

sector layout. All slot's sectors should be of the same size.”

Best regards,

Andrej Butok

From: Tomasz Jastrzębski via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 4:56 PM
To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-M] MCUBOOT_SWAP_USING_MOVE vs MCUBOOT_SWAP_USING_SCRATCH

Hi All,

I apologize for this probably trivial question, but I cannot find out if and why I should use MCUBOOT_SWAP_USING_MOVE or MCUBOOT_SWAP_USING_SCRATCH.

Are there any real advantages of move with SCRATCH other than that it requires less flash? - that is, min just one extra sector for all the images vs min one sector per image?

Move without scratch seems to provide a better wear balance but still almost all the examples I come across use move with scratch. What am I missing?

Kind regards,

Tomasz