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 ADF894AB1C2; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:17:50 +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=1790003872; cv=none; b=dFG+M92actC4rwKPcxUp05o/x1iccmlGTgdEC4Ob6iWOwku06d9y+/+s5TpGPP5GoQ/1nIi1zV8njNxfNRRnA3WQzZA9n1BDiWUIqJ6BxsnzzLbZHD+WfQyTIO6sqPk7PpgiCwlivnPYQNwma4U536e3elPaw8lA0Lj+nK5fMAc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790003872; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XiIYsOrPmhTtSAq297RuJeu7Kh60ICy+5B0ekAL4U7k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=AUXuBLl01Pi/z1oC8L5qOvwT6tzIND4dh1D491V8pKK0DqEe7aMOXbK690n52MPKYMYlUoIYxULPykZ5AZEp6nrcBIRR0Pt72aytlZqT5jA7YncB4DNCpZfxFbrGsJBpzTR6RIe4swOHsGSLfbc94isEAc4FiZrAPrhtfUz2Nk4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=FvsSq7bG; 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="FvsSq7bG" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 204551F000FF; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:17:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790003870; bh=FZeopfMMZGjaWtQq8rssdR4HwEQQbLQYNh1E8IOw0DI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=FvsSq7bGpr+WQkIRqKbIFqhznCehDavMsy+xrRUogym6mY3wQDOFmTHYiBDR5utUy xXnFOx0VI7OXvgUC4z2/HHL/SEm6ko7DVLbT+YWQ1jydr5XkbvhZI45RuAkLLNnxhd N+A0c7UsjQhvT2to6O5OzXKZDEmjTWodrS8LweVr6zuveCd+qWq2MyQqbecvRFnYtO jf06uhx5elUfYm7NkEy6yNp/gyfuP85YU6do3J+txWMitujkhsoByVbFO6oji5QpNk Z/OSu5MZCfcv0CKizE1chWr9RjK8uNUA4aBue93UMThW1qFJQDzxRsB34Of1JxSXYw ouyM6iHUmQJBw== Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 17:17:46 +0200 From: krzk@kernel.org To: Wentao Liang Cc: richard@nod.at, alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, vigneshr@ti.com, bbrezillon@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: atmel: Fix HSMC clock leak in legacy controller init Message-ID: References: <20260917102804.2146887-1-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: <20260917102804.2146887-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn> On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 10:28:04 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote: > atmel_hsmc_nand_controller_legacy_init() takes a reference to the > HSMC clock with of_clk_get() and enables it, but the error paths > that follow only release the device node, so both the reference and > the enable are leaked whenever the controller cannot be fully > initialized. The probe fails in that case and never reaches > atmel_hsmc_nand_controller_remove(), which is where the clock is > normally disabled and put. > > Add an err_disable_clk path that disables and releases the clock > before jumping to the existing out path. > > Fixes: f88fc122cc34 ("mtd: nand: Cleanup/rework the atmel_nand driver") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/atmel/nand-controller.c | 25 +++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > 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, how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not do if this was posted in a good faith. Best regards, Krzysztof