[PATCH] soc: fsl: cpm1: tsa: fix wrong clocks released on cleanup

[PATCH] soc: fsl: cpm1: tsa: fix wrong clocks released on cleanup

[Haotian Zhang]

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 <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
 drivers/soc/fsl/qe/tsa.c | 16 ++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/tsa.c b/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/tsa.c
index 4a88e54d25b9..502e2ffe8689 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/tsa.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/tsa.c
@@ -865,12 +865,12 @@ static int tsa_of_parse_tdms(struct tsa *tsa, struct device_node *np)
 			clk_put(tsa->tdm[i].l1rclk_clk);
 		}
 		if (tsa->tdm[i].l1tsync_clk) {
-			clk_disable_unprepare(tsa->tdm[i].l1rsync_clk);
-			clk_put(tsa->tdm[i].l1rsync_clk);
+			clk_disable_unprepare(tsa->tdm[i].l1tsync_clk);
+			clk_put(tsa->tdm[i].l1tsync_clk);
 		}
 		if (tsa->tdm[i].l1tclk_clk) {
-			clk_disable_unprepare(tsa->tdm[i].l1rclk_clk);
-			clk_put(tsa->tdm[i].l1rclk_clk);
+			clk_disable_unprepare(tsa->tdm[i].l1tclk_clk);
+			clk_put(tsa->tdm[i].l1tclk_clk);
 		}
 	}
 	return ret;
@@ -1039,12 +1039,12 @@ static void tsa_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 			clk_put(tsa->tdm[i].l1rclk_clk);
 		}
 		if (tsa->tdm[i].l1tsync_clk) {
-			clk_disable_unprepare(tsa->tdm[i].l1rsync_clk);
-			clk_put(tsa->tdm[i].l1rsync_clk);
+			clk_disable_unprepare(tsa->tdm[i].l1tsync_clk);
+			clk_put(tsa->tdm[i].l1tsync_clk);
 		}
 		if (tsa->tdm[i].l1tclk_clk) {
-			clk_disable_unprepare(tsa->tdm[i].l1rclk_clk);
-			clk_put(tsa->tdm[i].l1rclk_clk);
+			clk_disable_unprepare(tsa->tdm[i].l1tclk_clk);
+			clk_put(tsa->tdm[i].l1tclk_clk);
 		}
 	}
 }
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH] soc: fsl: cpm1: tsa: fix wrong clocks released on cleanup

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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 <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  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