Claude review: gpu: nova-core: vbios: Fix clippy error in Vbios::new()

[Claude Code Review Bot <claude-review@example.com>]

Patch Review

**Correctness: OK**

The transformation is sound. Before the patch:

```rust
Ok(BiosImageType::PciAt) => {
    if pci_at_image.is_none() {
        pci_at_image = Some(PciAtBiosImage::try_from(image)?);
    }
}
```

When `pci_at_image.is_some()`, the arm body runs but skips the assignment — effectively a no-op.

After the patch:

```rust
Ok(BiosImageType::PciAt) if pci_at_image.is_none() => {
    pci_at_image = Some(PciAtBiosImage::try_from(image)?);
}
```

When `pci_at_image.is_some()`, the match guard fails, Rust continues pattern matching, `Ok(BiosImageType::FwSec)` doesn't match (the code_type is PciAt), and execution falls through to `_ =>` which is a no-op. Behavior is identical.

**Minor nit — comment placement:**

```rust
Ok(BiosImageType::PciAt) if pci_at_image.is_none() => {
    // Silently ignore any extra PCI-AT images.
    pci_at_image = Some(PciAtBiosImage::try_from(image)?);
}
```

The comment "Silently ignore any extra PCI-AT images" now sits inside the arm that only fires for the *first* PCI-AT image (where we actually *process* it, not ignore it). The ignoring now happens implicitly via fall-through to `_ =>`. The comment still makes sense as explaining *why* the guard exists, but it could be slightly misleading to a reader who interprets it as describing what this arm body does. Consider moving it above the match arm:

```rust
// Silently ignore any extra PCI-AT images.
Ok(BiosImageType::PciAt) if pci_at_image.is_none() => {
    pci_at_image = Some(PciAtBiosImage::try_from(image)?);
}
```

This is a very minor style nit and not worth blocking the patch over.

**No other issues.** The patch does what it says — no functional change, just collapsing the `if` into a match guard to satisfy clippy.

---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer