From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web08.7571.1652174824715171627 for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 02:27:05 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=N+jjUORd; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 170.10.129.124, mailfrom: kraxel@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1652174823; 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=kKvZXVXoYGtBNlYvQSCxRDEC/ewV36ETZDzPu3+j1r4=; b=N+jjUORdiSscHhFOW7fewCGQ2417rPOZd1wvpnmMPZ0vSkcJrcZk0u1fjFwxriGyulIu3f gcgwEVx2JUWUog6EAOgMiZLQxpXqIphmHtthO02Sr7fMRTNfxKn5AG4tWle0WK51Q4x744 hAXu8Wgxyj8W55DtIsuWLwgVx/LuGdU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-31-L8niRp83NcugQvv9EimgyQ-1; Tue, 10 May 2022 05:26:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: L8niRp83NcugQvv9EimgyQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7D891C06EDB; Tue, 10 May 2022 09:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sirius.home.kraxel.org (unknown [10.39.195.194]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 671E41468940; Tue, 10 May 2022 09:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by sirius.home.kraxel.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 63B0518000A3; Tue, 10 May 2022 11:26:55 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 11:26:55 +0200 From: "Gerd Hoffmann" To: "Xu, Min M" Cc: "devel@edk2.groups.io" , "Dong, Eric" , "Ni, Ray" , Brijesh Singh , "Aktas, Erdem" , James Bottomley , "Yao, Jiewen" , Tom Lendacky Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] Support 2 CpuMpPei/CpuDxe in One image Message-ID: <20220510092655.re3wd3mu66toqor3@sirius.home.kraxel.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.7 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, May 09, 2022 at 12:44:58PM +0000, Xu, Min M wrote: > Gerd & Tom > What are your comments about this patch-set? > > > BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3918 > > > > Above BZ reports an issue that commit 88da06ca triggers ASSERT in some > > scenario. This patch-set is to fix this issue. > > > > As commit 88da06ca describes TDVF BSP and APs are simplied and it can > > simply use MpInitLibUp instead of MpInitLib. To achieve this goal, we > > include 2 CpuMpPei/CpuDxe drivers in OvmfPkgX64 and IntelTdxX64. This is > > done by setting different FILE_GUID to these drivers (of the same name). In > > the other hand, we import a set of MpInitLibDepLib. These libs simply > > depend on the PPI/Protocols. While these PPI/Protocols are installed > > according to the guest type. So the idea is to pick the one or the other implementations via guid and depex dependencies? The approach looks sane to me. Assuming the above is correct: Acked-by: Gerd Hoffmann take care, Gerd