Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: mediatek: Release DVFS resources when removing the driver

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 06:36:09 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> mtk_cpufreq_probe() registers the cpufreq driver and retains clocks,
> regulators, OPP tables and OPP notifiers in dvfs_info_list. There is no
> platform remove callback to undo this on device unbind or module unload.
> The devm-allocated DVFS information is freed while the list and cpufreq
> driver still refer to it, in addition to leaking the retained resources.
> 
> Unregister the cpufreq driver before releasing the DVFS resources and
> removing their entries from the list, as in the probe failure path.
> 
> Fixes: 89b56047f6f9 ("cpufreq: mt8173: Move resources allocation into ->probe()")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 



Multiple things here:
1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback. Multiple times.

2. You use multiple identities with this email, thus I doubt
   that we speak with an actual person.

3. Your bot does not even bother running checkpatch, right?

4. Nothing of this was reproduced nor tested.

5. Finally, the 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 what you should not do
if this was posted in a good faith.

Best regards,
Krzysztof