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

[Chao Gao]

>> The call to tdx_get_sysinfo() ensures that the TDX Module is ready to
>
>Nit:
>There are "TDX module", "TDX-module" and "TDX Module" in the cover letter.
>Better to align the style.

You are right. The terminology is inconsistent and confusing.

Different Intel specifications use different formats: the CPU Architectural
Extensions spec uses "TDX module" (lowercase 'm'), while the Module Base
Architecture Specification uses "TDX Module" (capital 'M'). I'm not sure where
"TDX-module" comes from, and Sean's VMXON series [*] adds to the confusion by
using "TDX-Module" in log messages.

*: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20260214012702.2368778-12-seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx/

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.