On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 23:29 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > The obsolete commit 71abbbf85 want to introduce a dynamic cstates, > but it was removed for long time. Just left the nonsense deeper > cstate > checking. > > Since all target_residency and exit_latency are going longer in > deeper > idle state, no needs to waste some cpu cycle on useless seeking.
Makes me wonder if it would be worth documenting the requirement that c-states be listed in increasing order? Acked-by: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
