Re: [PATCH v9 04/23] coco/tdx-host: Introduce a "tdx_host" device

[Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>]

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 09:21:36AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>On 5/13/26 08:09, Chao Gao wrote:
>> Co-developed-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
>
>This SoB chain at _least_ needs a note. It looks quite bizarre.

I will add a note.

This patch was originally written by me and then substantially revised
by Yilun, hence his Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by.

Then Dan made additional cleanups on top of Yilun's version and was the first
to post it at:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250919142237.418648-2-dan.j.williams@intel.com/

The current version is based on that posted patch, which is why the SoB
chain is unusual.

>
>> +config TDX_HOST_SERVICES
>> +	tristate "TDX Host Services Driver"
>> +	depends on INTEL_TDX_HOST
>> +	default m
>> +	help
>> +	  Enable access to TDX host services like module update and
>> +	  extensions (e.g. TDX Connect).
>> +
>> +	  Say y or m if enabling support for confidential virtual machine
>> +	  support (CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_HOST). The module is called tdx_host.ko.
>
>In what world will anyone ever set INTEL_TDX_HOST=y, but turn this off?

No, I do not think disabling TDX_HOST_SERVICES while INTEL_TDX_HOST=y makes
sense.

>Is this even worth a Kconfig prompt?
>
>I guess we need it for the module or built in choice. But otherwise it
>seems a bit silly.

Yes. it is for the module vs built-in choice.