> Since this is MI code, can we rename the flag into something
> technology agnostic that describes the purpose better.
> Something like CD_CONFIDENTIAL or CD_TRUSTED?

That fits with my previous comment.

I worry then something else will want to use this for an almost-similar
purpose.

This is going to be funny when a similar featureset come to arm64.  It
will have a different list of required devices.  Won't be long before
there is a MI device required by one, but which scares people on the
other architecture...  Alas, because this is a constant flag in MI static
structures, there will be no flexibility for the flag bit to mean different
things on different platforms.