Re: [PATCH v4 02/24] coco/tdx-host: Introduce a "tdx_host" device

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

On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 08:17:34PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>On 3/5/26 18:13, Chao Gao wrote:
>> I don't have a strong preference, but I'll standardize on "TDX
>> Module" since it matches the Base Architecture Specification, which
>> I think is the most authoritative source about TDX Module features/
>> terms.
>How about doing what the Linux kernel does -- and has been doing --
>instead of trying to pick a new policy a few years into the kernel
>dealing with TDX?

Makes sense to me.

>
>"TDX module" was the first and it's 20x more common in the history than
>the next closest one:
>
>$ git log -p arch/x86/ | grep -i -o 'tdx[- ]module' | sort | uniq -c |
>sort -n
>      2 TDX-module
>     21 TDX-Module
>     26 TDX Module
>    501 TDX module
>
>If you don't have a strong preference, why are you arguing for change now?

I was just explaining what I would do for this series and my reasoning (if no
one had a strong preference and no one responded). I wasn't arguing that "TDX
module" is worse in any way.