Change in coreboot[master]: soc/intel/alderlake/romstage: Refactor soc_memory_init_params function

[Tim Wawrzynczak (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Furquan Shaikh, Rizwan Qureshi, Subrata Banik, Angel Pons, Patrick Rudolph.
Tim Wawrzynczak has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/55225 )

Change subject: soc/intel/alderlake/romstage: Refactor soc_memory_init_params function
......................................................................

Patch Set 1:

(3 comments)

Commit Message:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/55225/comment/ae30b6d9_1d7415b0 
PS1, Line 12: This would help to increase the code readability and in future
            : meaningful addition of FSP-M UPDs is possible rather adding UPDs randomly
> I like this change! :).

Me too!

I have been secretly hoping, and maybe I should ask instead, is if we could get the UPDs separated by functional area or IP block, etc. kind of like how it's organized in this change, e.g.:

```
struct FSPM_UPD {
    struct CPU_UPD {
           uintptr_t tseg_base;
           size_t tseg_size;
    };
    struct SERIALIO_UPD {
           struct i2c_upd i2c[NUM_I2C];
           struct gspi_upd ....;
    };
    ...
};
```

File src/soc/intel/alderlake/romstage/fsp_params.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/55225/comment/8bbe216a_6641e73c 
PS1, Line 95: memory
> I would drop the `memory_init_params` part because FSP-M is not just about memory init (although the […]

+1 to `fill_fspm_*_params`

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/55225/comment/4ec0ddee_e0f7887a 
PS1, Line 244: 	dev = pcidev_path_on_root(SA_DEVFN_TCSS_XHCI);
             : 	m_cfg->TcssXhciEn = is_dev_enabled(dev);
             : 
             : 	dev = pcidev_path_on_root(SA_DEVFN_TCSS_XDCI);
             : 	m_cfg->TcssXdciEn = is_dev_enabled(dev);
             : 
             : 	/* TCSS DMA */
             : 	dev = pcidev_path_on_root(SA_DEVFN_TCSS_DMA0);
             : 	m_cfg->TcssDma0En = is_dev_enabled(dev);
             : 
             : 	dev = pcidev_path_on_root(SA_DEVFN_TCSS_DMA1);
             : 	m_cfg->TcssDma1En = is_dev_enabled(dev);
Just thinking out loud, maybe we want (another change) to add a is_devfn_enabled? 
```
bool is_devfn_enabled(unsigned int devfn)
{
      const struct device *dev = pcidev_path_on_root(devfn);
      return is_dev_enabled(dev);
}
```