On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 02:01:57PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> Yes. But, since the check is related to TDX, I just want to confirm whether
> you are fine with naming the function as intel_*().
Why is this such a big of a deal?!
There's amd_cc_platform_has() and intel_cc_platform_h
On 9/28/21 1:58 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 01:48:46PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
Just read it. If you want to use cpuid_has_tdx_guest() directly in
cc_platform_has(), then you want to rename intel_cc_platform_has() to
tdx_cc_platform_has()?
Why?
You s
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 01:48:46PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> Just read it. If you want to use cpuid_has_tdx_guest() directly in
> cc_platform_has(), then you want to rename intel_cc_platform_has() to
> tdx_cc_platform_has()?
Why?
You simply do:
if (cpuid_has_tdx_guest()
On 9/28/21 1:31 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:19:49PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
Intel CC support patch is not included in this series. You want me
to address the issue raised by Joerg before merging it?
Did you not see my email to you today:
https://
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:19:49PM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> Intel CC support patch is not included in this series. You want me
> to address the issue raised by Joerg before merging it?
Did you not see my email to you today:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/yvl4zughfsh1q...@zn.tnic
?
On 9/28/21 12:10 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
From: Borislav Petkov
Hi all,
here's v4 of the cc_platform_has() patchset with feedback incorporated.
I'm going to route this through tip if there are no objections.
Intel CC support patch is not included in this series. You want me
to address
From: Borislav Petkov
Hi all,
here's v4 of the cc_platform_has() patchset with feedback incorporated.
I'm going to route this through tip if there are no objections.
Thx.
Tom Lendacky (8):
x86/ioremap: Selectively build arch override encryption functions
arch/cc: Introduce a function to c
