[PATCH] rtc: stm32: release the LSCO clock provider on remove

[PATCH] rtc: stm32: release the LSCO clock provider on remove

[Wentao Liang]

The LSCO pinmux action registers the rtc_lsco clock provider with
of_clk_add_provider(), which takes a reference on the RTC device node.
stm32_rtc_remove() unregisters the gate clock but never calls
of_clk_del_provider(), so the node reference is never dropped and the
provider stays registered with a pointer to a clock that no longer
exists.

Delete the provider before unregistering the gate clock.

Fixes: bb7b0df2be5c ("rtc: stm32: add Low Speed Clock Output (LSCO) support")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
index 1c4e4bd7afe4..a77868bd79bd 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
@@ -1215,8 +1215,10 @@ static void stm32_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	const struct stm32_rtc_registers *regs = &rtc->data->regs;
 	unsigned int cr;
 
-	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(rtc->clk_lsco))
+	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(rtc->clk_lsco)) {
+		of_clk_del_provider(pdev->dev.of_node);
 		clk_unregister_gate(rtc->clk_lsco);
+	}
 
 	/* Disable interrupts */
 	stm32_rtc_wpr_unlock(rtc);
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] rtc: stm32: release the LSCO clock provider on remove

[sashiko-bot]

> The LSCO pinmux action registers the rtc_lsco clock provider with
> of_clk_add_provider(), which takes a reference on the RTC device node.
> stm32_rtc_remove() unregisters the gate clock but never calls
> of_clk_del_provider(), so the node reference is never dropped and the
> provider stays registered with a pointer to a clock that no longer
> exists.
> 
> Delete the provider before unregistering the gate clock.
> 
> Fixes: bb7b0df2be5c ("rtc: stm32: add Low Speed Clock Output (LSCO) support")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>

Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261103105546.1394618-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn?part=1

Re: [PATCH] rtc: stm32: release the LSCO clock provider on remove

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:55:46 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> The LSCO pinmux action registers the rtc_lsco clock provider with
> of_clk_add_provider(), which takes a reference on the RTC device node.
> stm32_rtc_remove() unregisters the gate clock but never calls
> of_clk_del_provider(), so the node reference is never dropped and the
> provider stays registered with a pointer to a clock that no longer
> exists.
> 
> Delete the provider before unregistering the gate clock.
> 
> Fixes: bb7b0df2be5c ("rtc: stm32: add Low Speed Clock Output (LSCO) support")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 

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

2. You use multiple identities with this email address, 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 the issue discovery method and what was
or was not tested.

Best regards,
Krzysztof