Re: [PATCH 3/3] efi: Format EFI version prints the way the standard says.

[Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>]

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-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Reviewed-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas-JFq808J9C/izQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  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?