MRAM can be a better choice for peripheral storage than flash in the embedded space. Say your embedded design will have a 10 year service life, won't have a ne

MRAM can be a better choice for peripheral storage than flash in the embedded space. Say your embedded design will have a 10 year service life, won't have a network connection, and is required to keep an elapsed time indicator of the powered-on time of some expensive peripheral with a 1 second resolution. With a flash-based EEPROM, you may have 100K writes before cells start failing from write fatigue. If you update some cells once per second, you'll hit that threshold in about a day. If you relax your requirement to writing once every hour, your flash will last for 10 years, but you're susceptible to inaccuracies if the device loses power before a write can be recorded. You could also integrate a wear leveling scheme at the cost of additional development and test time. Instead of working around flash's deficiencies, you could replace that EEPROM with MRAM. MRAM lacks enough of a write wear out mechanism for the write interval to matter, so you can safely update a value several times a second for decades without destroying it. This can be done easily from the kind of uC that lacks the memory to support a filesystem or network stack.