From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <brijesh.ksingh@gmail.com> Received: from mail-qk0-x230.google.com (mail-qk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8595803DF for <edk2-devel@ml01.01.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id v127so186911937qkb.2 for <edk2-devel@ml01.01.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:44:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2zLQx3gRMXsrC4fKkNibyWHRtlJ5oUzBpPyYEPNPCf4=; b=rrEBzdWfvyk3RZHmeJp8vPSxGFEkkt2VQy/cMWBoQ5fvdvJhZI7Fz3ECk89MHnKHdw CUrgoChW7bzuZEk4lEd7oaSruaku0WAHEzMHFcJBGo+FkO4tVp9pQ3wBNreH2FxTbM0v 151cHLLEtzCMmQWcuodv1vqqXsa6hnz+bducMLTOXEk4/k/Q0B0/yHtG/ALjAaOShm3G blDAy7Zv7cnFlq48aE7DlvJKF48rwNKzWO51uIVCfEeqOtMutm7jWFyfQMGJH+cMjPBc FRDpMLmxgX6QmxFIBBUvCIGDueYG9XQqGAbb6WaFF89RUY8cAt/ZGBnXTQV1BXi2ApTd Kuig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2zLQx3gRMXsrC4fKkNibyWHRtlJ5oUzBpPyYEPNPCf4=; b=N1OYcYaUufO5/mLGWjHw8xg+hMTDbWnJpjtfLfFvOWVws9t83Og12p71IWmYoIGNjw fjf9H3p94LxKfojyERfBl5fCISKgjPqsUFM7FqtjhJAHY3P7ttD22dyvp5GMC7KPvO6H FLEk0dITgiJQeUAQ/2qhc23C6jq6dIDpyba7qR3Zy8r+VlheHEHJd704OB+WpsW4cPHF A84Dfmxeq2iYBUL26mQZ3EXJf4kEZMM29onAh3GdJYvmpkgQkPZDlT4W0Ata9eWUmQw6 MvVnRuvhx92SHg8jmwpoIrja646Gj4h4qEIEfjNp9fSDjvdX56wgOyUcUsms5EMklh58 YpHA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3M4pdNsAlDdSskklRU5e4CtahauNlktxn2YK4Y0BLiJeE/kHvo3WWDSiMAoHwy5ZzuzM2CZD4AEvP8EQ== X-Received: by 10.55.27.71 with SMTP id b68mr3197878qkb.69.1490291043929; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:44:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.182.65 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:44:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2b2716f5-69f9-de81-ac64-246c8e5a49df@redhat.com> References: <149013076154.27235.10725020825643505862.stgit@brijesh-build-machine> <149013077498.27235.15379321048646409782.stgit@brijesh-build-machine> <15681e6f-dd58-957a-067f-f1036b31c62d@redhat.com> <CA+HCGMZy4Dc8VxABqeZ_aCQi6EXHHdLCDD-cQfFP6JGsvC9bzw@mail.gmail.com> <cd6f3a99-6080-f68d-1ed9-02822785a492@redhat.com> <CA+HCGMbPRHg18xhJ--jQKMHO-09yqFDiP_7n9_KdSmS56DBVzg@mail.gmail.com> <2b2716f5-69f9-de81-ac64-246c8e5a49df@redhat.com> From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.ksingh@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:44:03 -0500 Message-ID: <CA+HCGMbwotDgHPWa+YRtAG4zUsa1LtFJXG+6v=42_BRPpg9_Pg@mail.gmail.com> To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> Cc: "Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>, "Justen, Jordan L" <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>, edk2-devel@ml01.01.org, "Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>, brijesh.singh@amd.com, Leo Duran <leo.duran@amd.com>, Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com> X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.22 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/10] OvmfPkg/ResetVector: add memory encryption mask when SEV is enabled X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development <edk2-devel.lists.01.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.01.org/mailman/options/edk2-devel>, <mailto:edk2-devel-request@lists.01.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org> List-Help: <mailto:edk2-devel-request@lists.01.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel>, <mailto:edk2-devel-request@lists.01.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:44:05 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> > > > > I had similar question in my mind. Before creating the patch I checked > > with > > AMD architecture team. The response was, CPUID 0x8000_001F definition > > is fixed for x86 architecture. So, if Intel ever decides to report this > > CPUID leaf > > then it will comply to exact same definition. > > OK, this looks safe then. Can you please add it as a comment to the code? > > Sure will do. -Brijesh