From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1DA73BA225 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:07:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791526029; cv=none; b=ADPdqgspcG+oXzk+mcIziXDlEh+V06JbaUo8Y4rnY/Loo21Zn3uT4pqda/ElH7wICSGD6BzgOxTe6UK9WNkgJghJUQFwbFtngoA5zwAJSPgHYq45TKXn7rqv5kcZYDwZlXFeh7/Lba1BnW5R85Z/7eAv04V6C20QE+a3DVHvqLk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791526029; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bs+H3pfeuvduBarR0IofEA87LpsohPYzcS+X9GRkT5s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=pDUMqNDx0vCWprm/g0RwZIxSRYWTTEpnhyBJ6UFqs0Y6p4hKPqFHkC+zJze1DMpBusJv77bGZgALBzCzTNN6VRyMK8GtMsdZG4RrhxNF5qe3x4upeMbSpfL/hH+ssHXVNsW4qamNCC6Ikrm8SFsNpgkKquRBav707s3TUtOi48U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ZJn2rdhh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ZJn2rdhh" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D9951F000FF; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:07:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791526027; bh=/du9wEuofXf+8NbTewi6KKBVFh5WF8XdhjIfsLZhNPY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=ZJn2rdhhDpXpLRyXCcGSYUFO/xWY5xiZdafVQU1xOzhsoWwUAkE7qApwY0rbkTBQo 7vNmfT4A8ISrIKc7VP5ODQFkITYw2+h61ovVyxopBilrL0H+rbDIvOZoD3jNjoI1t3 AFcNV0RCk81mpQcDL/Mex9farBXuY5MHc7tA/gOZ1v813oGm3pOSTsqduCMD25YPZj 2tEzVXH/3tygzuSFHZnvzo/o1s/VU/EyEKHe7lKokp9hFxK+rFam01Z3rqP6TnyLWK K+bIYmQ/yyHq7F4oXZuAGpqo4oESvdE6t85AgcEYs+LtPPaQzMwjaMHnYgT5SbGmyV iAUfzwcY6PAQQ== Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 08:07:04 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Haotian Zhang Cc: Mark Brown , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Qiang Zhao , Herve Codina , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Yang , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: fsl: cpm1: tsa: fix wrong clocks released on cleanup Message-ID: <20261009-serious-jasmine-bumblebee-10ae3d@quoll> References: <20261009053720.3146117-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261009053720.3146117-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn> On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 13:37:20 +0800, Haotian Zhang wrote: > tsa_of_parse_tdms() gets and enables tdm->l1tsync_clk and > tdm->l1tclk_clk in addition to l1rsync_clk and l1rclk_clk, but the > error cleanup path releases l1rsync_clk/l1rclk_clk again in the > l1tsync_clk/l1tclk_clk branches. The tsync/tclk clocks are leaked -- > never disabled nor clk_put() -- while rsync/rclk are clk_put() twice, > underflowing their reference counts. tsa_remove() has the same > copy-paste bug. > > Release the clock actually held in each cleanup branch. > > Fixes: 1d4ba0b81c1c ("soc: fsl: cpm1: Add support for TSA") > Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash > Signed-off-by: Haotian Zhang > --- > drivers/soc/fsl/qe/tsa.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > Multiple things here: 1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback. 2. You use multiple identities with this email, thus I actually doubt we speak with actual person. 3. Finally, same feedback: You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was AI generated and most likely not tested. More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue. Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set. Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite worrying. This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner, like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down. Considering all this is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this should be considered for review. Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per subsystem (so a patchset grouping multiple patches with a short cover letter), how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not do if this was posted in a good faith. Best regards, Krzysztof