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 262C4409E12; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:07:14 +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=1791526036; cv=none; b=rwShsedlErcCJvmzOBiH/dP6jHq+TD2Th1W5UC9892MtLER7vOHCtvzTtbu77gNKNVMRRwsYnzcZ0GiPvWNOHow9hlAVh/Tqu28wS85TklEuU4iT1uXqfHWDz1hldNXHYUYaxvKsCA0+Qd5GzjjjiyzFBT0CO62glsB03hrdNXo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791526036; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JDsCCtvi0hoWfm8Lx1c+mQWVP5L96WHkkVGqqUdwrTs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=F+LdehJvp4tp1WpaBEpsEqWuU3qFK6uLSqikmNHlFvJ8zHHtkrRXawU7ftlcCECHtjmr5s/kzWVeKoVMytwNYHjFAUw2y1knYxylOacY4GGiYAHOGFKqsDxbJPIMp4/TPEEdYWrxZj1VNn75F+6LsF4q9qYuzsiXiFO7WU9DvaY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kahBY4tG; 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="kahBY4tG" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 839951F000FF; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:07:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791526034; bh=agMKBMpiwRJgV1vULO+B+WBkdT3fQoGt4YUPKH+BR+8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=kahBY4tG0F73YSq07+CR0bQZE6/3qKJ0ztmRXQ+MuO3LFRBD0kfcLoH7C69U4y7aG XUi/ZhaBphRAEXO+sF0sB8OAcPZ6JdT2tRyq400kZ6XoS9dAYfHAT5ko1mncxkjUW8 1vel4W5god98O5QdHgLlWlzLu5GDnv4MHTa8qaIhFLZe+LjcWs6FXlCDweq9tz+znh 2fKrxLgNtl/YMwzl15XVDrFVUT9kOsXnGCLYfNBK8cn4M7My9XhH+JL9X6CRqp3PSg xOD13k6GgmpkDYEwkRJAX/AbiCOVeEzE8yodMo+1KU79y/jFk0aRxDmIvCCgPuVM0S ZsNOKaPL7Osag== Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 08:07:11 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Haotian Zhang Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sound@vger.kernel.org, Martin Blumenstingl , Neil Armstrong , Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , Jaroslav Kysela , Kevin Hilman , Jerome Brunet , linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, Takashi Iwai , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: meson: axg-fifo: return a negative error code when no irq is found Message-ID: <20261009-screeching-authentic-rhino-bfacc4@quoll> References: <20261009051724.3134644-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sound@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: <20261009051724.3134644-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn> On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 13:17:24 +0800, Haotian Zhang wrote: > In axg_fifo_probe(), of_irq_get() returns 0 when irq_create_of_mapping() > fails to map the interrupt. The error path explicitly treats this as a > failure with "if (fifo->irq <= 0)" and logs "failed to get irq: 0", but > then returns fifo->irq as-is. probe() therefore succeeds with fifo->irq > set to 0, and the failure is only reported much later when > axg_fifo_pcm_open() calls request_threaded_irq() with irq 0. > > Return -EINVAL instead of 0, keeping the real negative error codes > untouched. > > Fixes: 6dc4fa179fb8 ("ASoC: meson: add axg fifo base driver") > Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash > Signed-off-by: Haotian Zhang > --- > sound/soc/meson/axg-fifo.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > 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