On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 02:13:53PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote: > On 3/22/2022 5:29 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:21:41AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > If you don't need a pflash device, don't use it: simply map your nvram > > > > > region as ram in your machine. No need to clutter the pflash model like > > > > > that. > > > > > > Using the pflash device for something which isn't actually flash looks a > > > bit silly indeed. > > > > > > > > > > > I know it's dirty to hack the pflash device. The purpose is to make the user > > > > interface unchanged that people can still use > > > > > > > > -drive if=pflash,format=raw,unit=0,file=/path/to/OVMF_CODE.fd > > > > -drive if=pflash,format=raw,unit=1,file=/path/to/OVMF_VARS.fd > > > > > > > > to create TD guest. > > > > > > Well, if persistent vars are not supported anyway there is little reason > > > to split the firmware into CODE and VARS files. You can use just use > > > OVMF.fd with a single pflash device. libvirt recently got support for > > > that. > > > > Agreed. > > The purpose of using split firmware is that people can share the same > code.fd while using different vars.fd That's fine for firmware that writes to vars.fd, but it was said earlier that changes aren't written with TDX (nor are they written with SEV), so a separate vars.fd serves no pupose in these cases. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
