Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] drm/i915/lt_phy: drop the unused pll argument from intel_lt_phy_pll_enable()

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Unnecessary dead argument left in intel_xe3plpd_pll_enable()
--

commit f2396c693af5e8056514c60f30bea8044eae04b7
Author: Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@intel.com>

drm/i915/lt_phy: drop the unused pll argument from intel_lt_phy_pll_enable()

intel_lt_phy_pll_enable() never looks at the pll, it is there only
because intel_xe3plpd_pll_enable() forwards its own arguments. Drop it
so callers that have no pll do not have to pass NULL.

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lt_phy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lt_phy.c
> index c626246b71f91..e05fd23b8a651 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lt_phy.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_lt_phy.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -2300,7 +2299,7 @@ void intel_xe3plpd_pll_enable(struct intel_encoder *encoder,
>  			      struct intel_dpll *pll,
>  			      const struct intel_dpll_hw_state *dpll_hw_state)
>  {
> -	intel_lt_phy_pll_enable(encoder, pll, dpll_hw_state);
> +	intel_lt_phy_pll_enable(encoder, dpll_hw_state);
>  }

[Severity: Low]
Could we also drop the pll argument from intel_xe3plpd_pll_enable()? 

Since the commit message mentions that intel_lt_phy_pll_enable() only had it
because intel_xe3plpd_pll_enable() forwards its own arguments, leaving it in
intel_xe3plpd_pll_enable() means we still have a dead argument here.

Dropping it from intel_xe3plpd_pll_enable() (and its caller in
intel_dpll_mgr.c) would make the API consistent, especially since its
counterpart intel_xe3plpd_pll_disable() takes only an encoder.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261014105306.2761683-1-mika.kahola@intel.com?part=3