From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265067AbTFYUjF (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:39:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265070AbTFYUjF (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:39:05 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:3343 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265067AbTFYUjB (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:39:01 -0400 To: Hugh Dickins Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.5] ACPI_HT_ONLY acpismp=force References: From: Andi Kleen Date: 25 Jun 2003 22:53:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hugh Dickins writes: > What's the point of bootparam "acpismp=force"? A way to change > your mind if you just said "acpi=off"? A hurdle to jump to get > CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY to do what you ask? 2.4.18 used to need it to > enable HT, but not recent releases. It can't configure in what's > not there, and now serves only to confuse: kill it. There are some boxes that don't work with the new ACPI code, but need minimal acpi parsing for hyperthreaded CPUs etc. To get these still to work the compatibility option is offered. Basically it's another safety net. Of course it would be better to make new ACPI work everywhere, but it's quite difficult. For 2.4 it's better to have the fallback. -Andi