From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web08.8111.1646142306830677014
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Tue, 01 Mar 2022 05:45:07 -0800
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Sr58rpex;
 spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 170.10.133.124, mailfrom: kraxel@redhat.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
	s=mimecast20190719; t=1646142306;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=TAAcC2503E7dBtMdN5+MNaH9yFEM3JpFzPnWfDrJPZI=;
	b=Sr58rpexBny+UwiX8DuqA5aH/uTmxMHLVAb51HLX7kY7X+metkO/as8AsasxYsLwIrukMC
	s31uxxthKG+n2hY6eaFMbJ3EDYYwkyXM5lD4rKyxIWEe7nvcOfh56u7gsxCBC5Il4kj1Hh
	2WU+ev4IkLrKR/Wm3mww7SeLV/A6LY0=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com
 [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS
 (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
 us-mta-624-TCEXpPq9N-mbhRdfRIoiBA-1; Tue, 01 Mar 2022 08:45:02 -0500
X-MC-Unique: TCEXpPq9N-mbhRdfRIoiBA-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE4F9824FAB;
	Tue,  1 Mar 2022 13:45:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sirius.home.kraxel.org (unknown [10.39.195.81])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93BB683572;
	Tue,  1 Mar 2022 13:45:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by sirius.home.kraxel.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id C08D6180039D; Tue,  1 Mar 2022 14:44:58 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 14:44:58 +0100
From: "Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com>
To: Min Xu <min.m.xu@intel.com>
Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io, Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
	Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@google.com>,
	James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 08/10] OvmfPkg/IncompatiblePciDeviceSupportDxe: Ignore OptionRom in Td guest
Message-ID: <20220301134458.4ipmt3rto5euc3o5@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
References: <20220228081631.681-1-min.m.xu@intel.com>
 <20220228081631.681-9-min.m.xu@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20220228081631.681-9-min.m.xu@intel.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com;
	auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=kraxel@redhat.com
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 04:16:29PM +0800, Min Xu wrote:
> RFC: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3429
> 
> Host VMM may inject OptionRom which is untrusted in Td guest. So PCI
> OptionRom needs to be ignored if it is of Td guest. According to
> "Table 20. ACPI 2.0 & 3.0 QWORD Address Space Descriptor Usage"
> PI spec 1.7, type-specific flags can be set to 0 when Address
> Translation Offset == 6 to skip device option ROM.

Can you split the reformating of the existing code and adding the new
code into two patches?  This is rather messy ...

thanks,
  Gerd