Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 18:28:29 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <nchatrad@amd.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, mchehab@kernel.org,
        airlied@linux.ie, Muralidhara M K <muralimk@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/amd_nb: unexport amd_cache_northbridges()
Message-ID: <YjDMvYOh8Vizq4xv@zn.tnic>
References: <20220228161154.54539-1-nchatrad@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220228161154.54539-1-nchatrad@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:41:54PM +0530, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi wrote:
> From: Muralidhara M K <muralimk@amd.com>
> 
> amd_cache_northbridges() is called from init_amd_nbs(), during
> fs_initcall() and need not be called explicitly. Kernel components
> can directly call amd_nb_num() to get the initialized number of
> north bridges.
> 
> unexport amd_cache_northbridges(), update dependent modules to
> call amd_nb_num() instead. While at it, simplify the while checks
> in amd_cache_northbridges().

What I am missing in this commit message is why is it ok to do that?

AFAIR, previously, amd_cache_northbridges() wasn't an initcall so the
module or builtin - which came first - was forcing the NB caching
through the explicit call to amd_cache_northbridges().

fs_inicall() does that now unconditionally so the question is, why can
the module init functions assume that the northbridges have been cached
already and can simply get the NB number?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette:wq