From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from b.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.144] helo=radon.swed.at) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.85_2 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1bFimi-0005C7-AZ for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:05:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] Raising the UBI version To: Boris Brezillon References: <57699356.4030802@nod.at> <20160622144344.07ba4d41@bbrezillon> <576A989A.6080502@nod.at> <20160622160118.28a4339a@bbrezillon> Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , Artem Bityutskiy , Alexander Kaplan , Brian Norris , Ezequiel Garcia From: Richard Weinberger Message-ID: <576A9B1D.3010201@nod.at> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:05:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160622160118.28a4339a@bbrezillon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Am 22.06.2016 um 16:01 schrieb Boris Brezillon: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:54:34 +0200 > Richard Weinberger wrote: > >> Am 22.06.2016 um 14:43 schrieb Boris Brezillon: >>> Why do we need to hardcode /sys/class/ubi/version to 1? We just need to >>> update the mtd-utils to support version 2. Am I missing something? >> >> We don't want to break existing userspace. >> Why should ubimkvol or ubiattach fail on a system with SLC NAND and >> CONFIG_MTD_UBI_CONSOLIDATE=y? > > But version won't be set to 2 in this case. If it's an SLC NAND we > don't need to use UBI version 2, do we. /sys/class/ubi/version is the version of the UBI implementation, not the version of the attached UBI image. It will the here as soon you load the UBI module. Thanks, //richard