Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/)
-   -   "nousb" poll (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/198031-nousb-poll.html)

Pete Zaitcev 11-22-2008 04:35 PM

"nousb" poll
 
Hi, Everyone:

Kernel upstream again had some build issues related to the "nousb"
parameter (it's being switched to core_param() API now). This got me
wondering if it's still useful now that we have kernels unified for
installation and normal work. It was introduced initially to work
around the issues with the crippled i386 kernel. So, the question:
does anyone still use "nousb"? If yes, please let me know. Maybe
I can just fix something in ACPI table parsing for you. My goal is
to drop "nousb" in Fedora 11.

Yours,
-- Pete

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Ralf Corsepius 11-22-2008 04:52 PM

"nousb" poll
 
On Sat, 2008-11-22 at 10:35 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> Hi, Everyone:
>
> Kernel upstream again had some build issues related to the "nousb"
> parameter (it's being switched to core_param() API now). This got me
> wondering if it's still useful now that we have kernels unified for
> installation and normal work. It was introduced initially to work
> around the issues with the crippled i386 kernel. So, the question:
> does anyone still use "nousb"? If yes, please let me know.
Yes, I am.

Typically on older machines,
* which don't have USB.
* on which USB is too uneffective to be useful (e.g. only have USB-1.x)
* on which USB is not supposed to be used.

> Maybe
> I can just fix something in ACPI table parsing for you. My goal is
> to drop "nousb" in Fedora 11.

<sigh/> another nail in Fedora's coffin on low end platforms?

Ralf


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Alan Cox 11-22-2008 06:34 PM

"nousb" poll
 
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 06:52:30PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-11-22 at 10:35 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > Hi, Everyone:
> >
> > Kernel upstream again had some build issues related to the "nousb"
> > parameter (it's being switched to core_param() API now). This got me
> > wondering if it's still useful now that we have kernels unified for
> > installation and normal work. It was introduced initially to work
> > around the issues with the crippled i386 kernel. So, the question:
> > does anyone still use "nousb"? If yes, please let me know.
> Yes, I am.

And me - on boxes with buggy BIOS SMM.

> > I can just fix something in ACPI table parsing for you. My goal is
> > to drop "nousb" in Fedora 11.
>
> <sigh/> another nail in Fedora's coffin on low end platforms?

And some high end ones where you need a BIOS upgrade and it isn't ACPI
failures.

My low end ones are all fine with USB ;)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Pete Zaitcev 11-22-2008 06:47 PM

"nousb" poll
 
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:34:23 -0500, Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com> wrote:

> And me - on boxes with buggy BIOS SMM.

Eww, I forgot about those. BTW, what's the console on them?

-- Pete

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Alan Cox 11-23-2008 09:47 AM

"nousb" poll
 
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:47:35PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > And me - on boxes with buggy BIOS SMM.
>
> Eww, I forgot about those. BTW, what's the console on them?

Not sure I understand the question ?

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Pete Zaitcev 11-23-2008 06:03 PM

"nousb" poll
 
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:47:39 -0500, Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:47:35PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > > And me - on boxes with buggy BIOS SMM.
> >
> > Eww, I forgot about those. BTW, what's the console on them?
>
> Not sure I understand the question ?

Sorry. I meant to ask: if the USB does not work, how is the
console input arranged?

-- Pete

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Bill Nottingham 11-24-2008 06:48 PM

"nousb" poll
 
Ralf Corsepius (rc040203@freenet.de) said:
> Yes, I am.
>
> Typically on older machines,
> * which don't have USB.

... in which case nousb does nothing.

> * on which USB is too uneffective to be useful (e.g. only have USB-1.x)

... in which case nousb only saves a bit of time on boot initializing
the controller.

> <sigh/> another nail in Fedora's coffin on low end platforms?

Given that all it does is tell a built-in module to not initialize,
I don't see how it afffects low end at all - it certainly doesn't
save you any memory.

Bill

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Ralf Corsepius 11-25-2008 03:34 AM

"nousb" poll
 
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 14:48 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius (rc040203@freenet.de) said:
> > Yes, I am.
> >
> > Typically on older machines,
> > * which don't have USB.
>
> ... in which case nousb does nothing.
It avoids potential errors

> > * on which USB is too uneffective to be useful (e.g. only have USB-1.x)
>
> ... in which case nousb only saves a bit of time on boot initializing
> the controller.
... and poking around into BIOS/registers etc.

> > <sigh/> another nail in Fedora's coffin on low end platforms?
>
> Given that all it does is tell a built-in module
Note this ^^^^^^^^

> to not initialize,
> I don't see how it afffects low end at all - it certainly doesn't
> save you any memory.
Yes, making usb built-in killed the most of benefits nousb once had
provided.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Pete Zaitcev 12-01-2008 12:13 AM

"nousb" poll
 
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:34:54 +0100, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:

> > I don't see how it afffects low end at all - it certainly doesn't
> > save you any memory.

> Yes, making usb built-in killed the most of benefits nousb once had
> provided.

The "nousb" never saved any memory. To say otherwise is cargo cult
science. This is because a) "nousb" never affected the USB core, and
b) tests for it were located inside HCDs, so they had to be loaded
for it to have any effect.

-- Pete

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Ralf Corsepius 12-01-2008 04:02 AM

"nousb" poll
 
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 18:13 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:34:54 +0100, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
>
> > > I don't see how it afffects low end at all - it certainly doesn't
> > > save you any memory.
>
> > Yes, making usb built-in killed the most of benefits nousb once had
> > provided.
>
> The "nousb" never saved any memory.
It had caused the kernel not to load in uhci, ehci, etc.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:36 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.