On 8/6/2012 12:19 AM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote: > > On 5 August 2012 22:43, Arjan van de Ven > wrote: > > From 2e88a61859db0592707d1a0a35e33408a0327951 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Arjan van de Ven > > 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.