On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:18:22AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Wed, 07 Sep, at 10:56:26AM, Peter Jones wrote: > > We print "EFI v2.xx.yy vendor blahblah" at several places. Make them > > conform to the standard format. > > > > This leaves 2 checkpatch warnings in arch/ia64/kernel/efi.c intact; the > > old code would have produced them, and they match the nearby code in the > > functions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/ia64/kernel/efi.c | 14 ++++++-------- > > arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c | 20 ++++++++++++-------- > > drivers/firmware/efi/arm-init.c | 13 ++++++------- > > drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- > > include/linux/efi.h | 2 ++ > > 5 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > I'm not sure about this one. Booting with this patch on my test VMs I > see the old, > > efi: EFI v2.40 by EDK II > > now reading, > > efi: EFI v2.4 by EDK II > > Yes, the new string is obviously more correct but gratuitous changes > to the strings we print on boot have caused trouble in the past. If > people have scripts or tests that check the EFI version that gets > printed they'll break. > > Are there any additional supporting reasons for this patch? Really I just prefer to have them say the same thing the spec does - but your point is certainly valid. Would you be happier with it if I put a check in that only prints the new way for, say, revisions newer than 2.6, and prints them the older way otherwise? -- Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
