That is my question. AMD has its own extension. TDX has its own extension. Why we have to unify the firmware binary, and to make both us unconfirmable? Or do we want to unify ARM/AARch64/RISC-V ?
I agree we can unify as much as possible. But due to hardware difference i don't think we achieve 100% unifying. Thank you Yao Jiewen > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 1:37 PM > To: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen....@intel.com> > Cc: Xu, Min M <min.m...@intel.com>; Brijesh Singh <brijesh.si...@amd.com>; > devel@edk2.groups.io; Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianoc...@kernel.org>; Justen, > Jordan L <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>; Erdem Aktas <erdemak...@google.com>; > James Bottomley <j...@linux.ibm.com>; Tom Lendacky > <thomas.lenda...@amd.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH V7 1/1] OvmfPkg: Enable TDX in ResetVector > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 02:19:17PM +0000, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > > All fields in TDX metadata are required. So the current SEV proposal > > (3 fields) does not work for TDX. The extra fields are used to guide > > VMM on how to copy the binary, allocate memory, > > --verbose please. > > The VMM loads the firmware just fine today without that metadata because > it's defined by the x86 architecture how to the firmware must be loaded. > > And note that we are discussing an unified normal/sev/tdx firmware > binary here, so the "we might do something completely different for > tdx in the future" argument isn't very convincing here. > > take care, > Gerd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#81070): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/81070 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/85761661/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
