Re: [Powertop] [PATCH 2/4] Make the "which C state line" logic better
On 8/6/2012 12:19 AM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
On 5 August 2012 22:43, Arjan van de Ven <arjan(a)linux.intel.com
<mailto:arjan@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
From 2e88a61859db0592707d1a0a35e33408a0327951 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan(a)linux.intel.com
<mailto:arjan@linux.intel.com>>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 09:57:49 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Make the "which C state line" logic better
the ARM guys complained that their human-readable C state names didn't have
numbers in them, and that as a result, the output is all messed up.
Using the "linux_name" instead is only a partial solution; it messes up the
x86
side of the logic.
I fail to understand how using "linux_name" for parsing C states would mess up
x86 logic. Each supported C state will have corresponding 'stateX' directory
(linux_name) which contain numbers in them. Also there are few hard coded
states in intel_cpus.cpp file, in which linux_name contains numbers in them
as well. In both the cases linux_name contains numbers and hence safe to
parse. Please let me know if I am missing something here.
it contains numbers, but not the right ones
so on x86, the package, core and cpu states do not line up properly if I only use
linux_name.
(e.g. package C6 and core C6 are on a different line than CPU C6)
with this patch that is kept correctly, while hopefully also fixing your issue.