On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 01:14:17PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
> So non-EFI case would rely purely on the setup_data entry for both (though
> we could still use boot_params->cc_blob_address to avoid the need to scan
> setup_data list in proper kernel as well, but scanning it early on doesn't
> have the same issues as with EFI config table so it's not really
> necessary there).
Yeah, sure, we can simply always use boot_params->cc_blob_address just
like acpi_rsdp_addr and always put the CC blob address there.
> I opted to give setup_data precedence over EFI, since if a bootloader goes
> the extra mile of packaging up a setup_data argument instead of just leaving
> it to firmware/EFI config table, it might be out of some extra need. For
> example, if we do have a shared definition for both SEV and TDX, maybe the
> bootloader needs to synthesize multiple EFI table entries, and a unified
> setup_data will be easier for the kernel to consume than replicating that same
> work, and maybe over time the fallback can be deprecated. And containers will
> more than likely prefer setup_data approach, which might drive future changes
> that aren't in lockstep with EFI definitions as well.
Yah, that makes perfect sense. And you/Brijesh should put the gist of
that in a comment over the code so that people are aware. The less we
rely on firmware, the better.
> Brijesh can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the intent, and the
> setup_data approach definitely seems workable for that aspect.
Oki doki, I think we're all on the same page then. :-)
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
