Re: [PATCH] PCI: keystone: drop host bridge reference in ks_pcie_quirk()

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:42:39 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> pci_get_host_bridge_device() takes a kobject reference on the host
> bridge device.  ks_pcie_quirk() returns without releasing it on every
> path after the lookup, including the AM654 PG1.0 path that only limits
> the MRRS, so the reference is leaked once for each enabled downstream
> device below an AM654 root complex.
> 
> Move the AM654 handling out of the enclosing conditional and release
> the reference through a single cleanup label.
> 
> Fixes: 86f271f22bbb ("PCI: keystone: Add workaround for Errata #i2037 (AM65x SR 1.0)")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone.c | 45 +++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 

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