On 4/1/2022 6:36 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 1/4/22 07:28, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
On 4/1/2022 1:08 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
if (sev_enabled()) {
^^^
Can we remove the SEV check ...
+ pc_system_parse_ovmf_flash(ptr, size);
+
+ if (sev_enabled()) {
... because we are still checking SEV here.
Well, the two checks have slightly different purposes. The first check
will probably become "if (sev || tdx)" soon,
Not soon for TDX since the hacky pflash interface to load TDVF is
rejected.
You can still convince us you need a pflash for TDX, and particularly
"a pflash that doesn't behave like pflash".
I'm fine with "-bios" option to load TDVF. :)
Also, see the comment in
the next patch of this series:
+ * [...] there is no need to register
+ * the firmware as rom to properly re-initialize on reset.
+ * Just go for a straight file load instead.
+ */
Yes, Gerd's this series make it easier for TDX to load TDVF via -bios.
whereas the second will
become "if (sev) { ... } if (tdx) { ... }".
We could remove the first. pc_system_parse_ovmf_flash() would run
unconditionally then. Not needed, but should not have any bad side
effects.
OK, then:
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
