From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from blyat.fensystems.co.uk (blyat.fensystems.co.uk [54.246.183.96])
 by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.6532.1622803387895996197
 for <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
 Fri, 04 Jun 2021 03:43:09 -0700
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: ipxe.org, ip: 54.246.183.96, mailfrom: mcb30@ipxe.org)
Received: from dolphin.home (unknown [IPv6:2a00:23c6:5495:5e00:72b3:d5ff:feb1:e101])
	by blyat.fensystems.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFE8A441A9;
	Fri,  4 Jun 2021 10:43:03 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [edk2-devel] RFC: design review for TDVF in OVMF
To: devel@edk2.groups.io, lersek@redhat.com,
 "Yao, Jiewen" <jiewen.yao@intel.com>, "rfc@edk2.groups.io"
 <rfc@edk2.groups.io>
Cc: "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
 Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>, Tom Lendacky
 <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, "erdemaktas@google.com" <erdemaktas@google.com>,
 "cho@microsoft.com" <cho@microsoft.com>,
 "bret.barkelew@microsoft.com" <bret.barkelew@microsoft.com>,
 Jon Lange <jlange@microsoft.com>, Karen Noel <knoel@redhat.com>,
 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
 Nathaniel McCallum <npmccallum@redhat.com>,
 "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
 "Ademar de Souza Reis Jr." <areis@redhat.com>
References: <SA2PR11MB489293010F788D305B7A98AD8C3C9@SA2PR11MB4892.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <e23a6f0e-2d2a-7471-9696-6996f664fd4d@redhat.com>
 <PH0PR11MB48857BEAD29D75BB9BF88D278C3C9@PH0PR11MB4885.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <db113ff9-f0aa-aa20-886c-2ec4dbb71702@redhat.com>
From: "Michael Brown" <mcb30@ipxe.org>
Message-ID: <8bef0eb1-6e8f-83a7-3513-23ec59f56cde@ipxe.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:43:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <db113ff9-f0aa-aa20-886c-2ec4dbb71702@redhat.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
	blyat.fensystems.co.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 04/06/2021 11:11, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> And, to reiterate, just because Confidential Computing is the
> new hot thing, the use cases for OvmfPkgIa32, OvmfPkgIa32X64, OvmfPkgX64
> do not disappear. Regressing them, or making them unmaintainable due to
> skyrocketing complexity, is not acceptable.

Totally agree with this.  Confidential Computing is a very niche use 
case, and there is no justification for exploding the complexity of the 
standard OVMF build.

If, several years from now, it ever reaches the point that the majority 
of real-world workloads are using TDX, then there would be an argument 
that the complexity cost has to be paid and that the standard OVMF build 
should include TDX features.  But that's several years away and may 
never happen.

Michael