On Sunday, August 2, 2020 5:17:39 PM CEST Doug Smythies wrote:

Hi Rafael,

On 2020.07.19 04:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:37 PM Doug Smythies [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2020.07.16 05:08 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:39 PM Doug Smythies [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2020.07.14 11:16 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

From: Rafael J. Wysocki <redacted>

...

quoted

Since the passive mode hasn't worked with HWP at all, and it is not going to
the default for HWP systems anyway, I don't see any drawbacks related to making
this change, so I would consider this as 5.9 material unless there are any
serious objections.

Good point.

Actually, for those users that default to passive mode upon boot,
this would mean they would find themselves using this.
Also, it isn't obvious, from the typical "what driver and what governor"
inquiry.

So the change in behavior is that after this patch
intel_pstate=passive doesn't imply no_hwp any more.

That's a very minor difference though and I'm not aware of any adverse
effects it can cause on HWP systems anyway.

My point was, that it will now default to something where
testing has not been completed.

quoted

The "what governor" is straightforward in the passive mode: that's
whatever cpufreq governor has been selected.

I think you might have missed my point.
From the normal methods of inquiry one does not know
if HWP is being used or not. Why? Because with
or without HWP one gets the same answers under:

/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_driver
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor

Yes, but this is also the case in the active mode, isn't it?

Thanks!