Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] ACPI: scan: Adjust power management initialization and PCI devices handling

[Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 7:10 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> This is an update of
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/5144065.31r3eYUQgx@rafael.j.wysocki/
>
> that adds 1 patch, 3 two patches, and addresses review comments in patch [2/4].
>
> The new patch drops in v3 is a cleanup relocating the acpi_bus_init_power()
> declaration to an internal header file in the core ACPI support code (patch
> [3/4]).
>
> One of the patches dropped from the v2 has been folded into patch [2/4]
> and the other two have become cleanups on top of this series that can be
> done later.
>
> Overall, the series aims at addressing a few issues present in the core ACPI
> device enumeration code, mostly related to the acpi_bus_attach() function.
>
> The first one is that, on some systems, ACPI power management is initialized
> twice for devices that have missing dependencies to start with.  An attempt
> to address this issue had been made during the 7.3 merge window, but it had
> to be reverted [1].  The approach used here is roughly the same as in the
> reverted commit, but it takes PCI devices (which are a special case) into
> account.
>
> In addition to the above, ACPI power management may be initialized prematurely
> for device objects whose parents are not ready for enumeration.
>
> The other issues are that flags are unnecessarily cleared by acpi_bus_attach()
> for devices with missing dependencies and PCI devices are handled by
> acpi_bus_attach() like any other devices which is a mistake.
>
> Please see the changelogs of individual patches for details.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/20260820-acpi-power-resource-ref-fix-v2-1-29818173ea13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1]

This series has received two Tested-by tags and I believe that the
only Sashiko's comment on it has been addressed:

https://sashiko.dev/#/message/CAJZ5v0i-Q_Gnz%2B2ti3sOHTCZF4dTZT%2BoUoNVSB-TMfz-SJH4Xw%40mail.gmail.com

so I'm planning to put it into linux-next this week so it is exposed
to broader testing relatively soon in the cycle because it is not a
straightforward change.

If anyone has concerns or reservations regarding it, please let me know.

Thanks!