FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-22-2008, 04:35 PM
Pete Zaitcev
 
Default "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
 
Old 11-22-2008, 04:52 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default "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
 
Old 11-22-2008, 06:34 PM
Alan Cox
 
Default "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
 
Old 11-22-2008, 06:47 PM
Pete Zaitcev
 
Default "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
 
Old 11-23-2008, 09:47 AM
Alan Cox
 
Default "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
 
Old 11-23-2008, 06:03 PM
Pete Zaitcev
 
Default "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
 
Old 11-24-2008, 06:48 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default "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
 
Old 11-25-2008, 03:34 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default "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
 
Old 12-01-2008, 12:13 AM
Pete Zaitcev
 
Default "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
 
Old 12-01-2008, 04:02 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default "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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:57 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org