From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com ([209.85.220.222]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Ncty7-0000Q3-92 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:09:35 +0000 Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so4832602fxm.2 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:09:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: To remove UBI Control Device . . . From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Lee Amirev In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:09:25 +0200 Message-Id: <1265260166.2517.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 15:15 -0500, Lee Amirev wrote: > My system does not need to dynamically attach or detach MTD devices to > UBI. We can just attach all that we need through boot or module > parameters. Therefore, we don't need the UBI control device > (/dev/ubi_ctrl). In order to prevent the device from existing, I > could simply comment out the misc_register and misc_deregister calls > in ubi_init or ubi_exit in /drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c. Is this > sufficient? Are there any unintended consequences in removing the > control device? It should be fine. But I do not think it is nice solution. I think the proper solution is to amend your udev rules. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)