On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 07:59:14 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> The PXP component bind callback publishes the component pointer and may
> create a stateless device link before loading HuC firmware. If HuC
> loading fails and the device is active, the callback returns that error
> without clearing either resource. The component framework does not call
> unbind for a component whose bind callback failed, leaving a stale
> component pointer and an unreleased device link.
>
> Clear the published pointer under tee_mutex and delete the link before
> returning the firmware error. Check the error before the suspended-device
> shortcut too, so binding failure does not depend on runtime PM state and
> PXP hardware initialization is skipped on failure.
>
> Fixes: 087b681805f1 ("drm/i915/dg2: setup HuC loading via GSC")
> Cc: [email protected]
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/pxp/intel_pxp_tee.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
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
