Hi, > > > Type: OVMF_SECTION_TYPE_SEC_MEM also seems for SEV. TDX does not > > need this special memory, such as Page table. It is already covered by code. > > > > These are "needs pre-validation / pre-acceptance" regions. > > TDX surely needs that too. > I don't think TDX need this. The page table should be covered by CODE already.
I think you are wrong here, the patch has this ... +_OvmfPageTable: + DD 0 + DD 0 + DQ OVMF_PAGE_TABLE_BASE + DQ OVMF_PAGE_TABLE_SIZE + DD TDX_METADATA_SECTION_TYPE_TEMP_MEM + DD 0 ... and a few simliar entries. > > > I really cannot see the benefit to merge into one table. > > > > Keep reset vector small? > > Have common parser structs and code? > > I think it is opposite. This proposal makes reset vector larger, if we > need define more structure to satisfy TDX, but it is not needed by > SEV. The sev and tdx specific entries will be there anyway, no matter whenever we place them into one or two separate tables. Shared items like the page table memory will be there only once when we use a unified table, but twice with two separate tables. take care, Gerd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#81076): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/81076 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
