Re: HT not working by default since 2.4.22

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:37:43PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > How about the more simple CONFIG_HYPERTHREAD or CONFIG_HT?
> > 
> > If enabled and CONFIG_SMP is set, then we will attempt to discover HT 
> > via ACPI tables, regardless of CONFIG_ACPI value.
> 
> Yes, except I think we should keep the name CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY since it
> says exactly what it does.
> 
> Hopefully I can make it looke clear in the menus --
> I think on the config menus for CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY and CONFIG_ACPI
> should be mutually exclusive.

Now that I've thought of it (aren't I humble), I rather like CONFIG_HT.
It's simple and it's effects should be obvious to both developer and
user:

	CONFIG_HT, CONFIG_ACPI == ACPI
	!CONFIG_HT, CONFIG_ACPI == ACPI
	CONFIG_HT, !CONFIG_ACPI == HT-only ACPI
	!CONFIG_HT, !CONFIG_ACPI == no ACPI

Following the "autoconf model", what we really want to be testing with
CONFIG_xxx is _features_, where possible. "hyperthreading: yes/no" is
IMO more clear than "do I want ht-only ACPI or full ACPI", while at the
same time being more fine-grained and future-proof.


> > Or... (I know multiple people will shoot me for saying this) we could 
> > resurrect acpitable.[ch], and build that when CONFIG_ACPI is disabled.
> 
> The question about configs is independent of the acpitable.[ch] vs
> table.c implementation.  No, we should not return to maintaining two
> copies of the acpi table code.

Point; agreed.

	Jeff