On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:17:44PM -0600, Venu Busireddy wrote:

Boris & Tom, which implementation would you prefer?

I'd like to see how that sme_sev_parse_cpuid() would look like. And that
function should be called sev_parse_cpuid(), btw.

Because if that function turns out to be a subset of your suggestion,
functionality-wise, then we should save us the churn and simply do one
generic helper.

Btw 2, that helper should be in arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c so that it
gets shared by both kernel stages instead having an inline function in
some random header.

Btw 3, I'm not crazy about the feature testing with the @features param
either. Maybe that function should return the eYx register directly,
like the cpuid_eYx() variants in the kernel do, where Y in { a, b, c, d
}.

The caller can than do its own testing:

	eax = sev_parse_cpuid(RET_EAX, ...)
	if (eax > 0) {
		if (eax & BIT(1))
			...

Something along those lines, for example.

But I'd have to see a concrete diff from Michael to get a better idea
how that CPUID parsing from the CPUID page is going to look like.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette