> > +
> > +static void detect_seam(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > +{
>
> why not do this check directly in tdx_detect_cpu()?
The second patch will detect TDX KeyID too. I suppose you are saying below is
better?
void tdx_detect_cpu(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
{
if (c == &boot_cpu_data) {
detect_seam_bsp(c);
detect_tdx_keyids_bsp(c);
} else {
detect_seam_ap(c);
detect_tdx_keyids_ap(c);
}
}
I personally don't see how above is better than the current way. Instead, I
think having SEAM and TDX KeyID detection code in single function respectively
is more flexible for future extension (if needed).
>
> > + if (c == &boot_cpu_data)
> > + detect_seam_bsp(c);
> > + else
> > + detect_seam_ap(c);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void tdx_detect_cpu(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > +{
> > + detect_seam(c);
> > +}
>
