Furquan Shaikh has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/45873 )
Change subject: lib, mb, soc: change mainboard_get_dram_part_num() prototype ......................................................................
Patch Set 4:
(1 comment)
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/45873/3/src/soc/intel/alderlake/rom... File src/soc/intel/alderlake/romstage/romstage.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/45873/3/src/soc/intel/alderlake/rom... PS3, Line 92: part_name_overridden
Checking dram_part_num for null here would change initial intent of this code. This code was written to specifically use whatever part number was defined for that particular dimm (each dimm record has string storage for part name). In reality, I doubt we would ever see a mixed-dimm model where different slots may have different parts, but the original code was written to support that possibility, so I was retaining that.
Original code set dram_part_num on line 67. If it was NULL, it would end up setting the dram_part_num here on line 89 and use that for all the DIMMs. I understand your comment about multiple DIMMs reporting different part numbers, but the original code did not really account for that. Hence my comment about keeping the logic same.