Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] x86/virt/tdx: Configure add-on features on TDX module init

[Tony Lindgren]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 03:30:55PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 10:13:56AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 06:26:55PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > --- a/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c
> > > @@ -998,6 +998,15 @@ static __init int construct_tdmrs(struct list_head *tmb_list,
> > >  	return ret;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +/* List all kernel supported add-on features0 bits here */
> > > +#define TDX_KERNEL_SUPPORTED_ADDON_FEATURES0	(0)
> > > +
> > > +static __init u64 get_tdx_addon_features0(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	return tdx_sysinfo.features.tdx_features0 &
> > > +		TDX_KERNEL_SUPPORTED_ADDON_FEATURES0;
> > > +}
> > 
> > How about get_tdx_supported_addon_features() for the above? It makes the
> 
> mm.. I think this would make a bit confusion. "tdx_supported" reads like
> the module supported features, which is just .tdx_features0. But here we
> want both the module & kernel support. I'm thinking of:
> 
>  get_tdx_addon_features0(), just as is
> 
>  or
> 
>  tdx_get_supported_addon_features0(), maybe this is better?

Something to describe it's masked with Linux supported features would be
nicest.

Maybe something like get_tdx_masked_features0() or just
get_tdx_usable_features0()?