> Could we just say this is always true because state[i+1] consumes less
> than state[i] ?
>
> And then just remove the 'set_power_state' function, and the field
> 'driver->power_specified' ?
>
> That will cleanup the code and fix this problem, no ?
I totally agree with your analysis. Even if a dr
On 10/22/2012 07:13 PM, Julius Werner wrote:
>> Could we just say this is always true because state[i+1] consumes less
>> than state[i] ?
>>
>> And then just remove the 'set_power_state' function, and the field
>> 'driver->power_specified' ?
>>
>> That will cleanup the code and fix this problem, no
On 10/19/2012 11:50 PM, Julius Werner wrote:
> When cpuidle drivers do not supply explicit power_usage values,
> cpuidle/driver.c inserts dummy values instead. When a running processor
> dynamically gains new C-states (e.g. after ACPI events), the power_usage
> values of those states will stay unin
When cpuidle drivers do not supply explicit power_usage values,
cpuidle/driver.c inserts dummy values instead. When a running processor
dynamically gains new C-states (e.g. after ACPI events), the power_usage
values of those states will stay uninitialized, and cpuidle governors
will never choose to
