On 06/24/2021 8:36 AM, James Bottomley wrote:

On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 00:24 +0000, Min Xu wrote:

On 06/22/2021 9:39 PM, Laszlo wrote:

I should clarify: the relevant part of my preference is not that
"IntelTdx.dsc"
contain the *complete* TDVF feature set. The relevant part (for me)
is that "OvmfPkgX64.dsc" *not* be over-complicated for the sake of
TDX, even considering only the "basic" TDVF feature set. It's fine
to implement TDX in two stages ("basic" and "complete"); my point is
that even "basic"
should not over-
complicate "OvmfPkgX64.dsc".

Thanks much for the comments and we don't want to make OvmfPkgX64.dsc
over-complicated either.
We have updated the design slides to V0.95 and Slides 6-15 are
discussing the Config-A and Config-B.
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/files/Designs/2021/0611/TDVF_Design_Rev
iew%28v0.95%29.pptx
Your comment is always welcome!

The mailing list still won't give me that file, can you update it in the bugzilla:

https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3429

As well, please?

Sure. TDVF Design Review v0.95 is uploaded to
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3429

Thanks
Min

Thanks much everyone who attended 2 sessions of TDVF design review meeting
and lots of valuable comments and feedbacks received. These 2 meetings were
recorded and now uploaded to below link:
Session 1:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/100__tNVe5erNzExySq2SJOprvBN7zz8u/view?usp=sharing
Session 2:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aDvtLhLxzniOISljXwjZH0YT_m7EBn8b/view?usp=sharing

Thank you!
Min