From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] efi: Format EFI version prints the way the standard says. Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:42:57 -0400 Message-ID: <20160916144256.rnjc3pc2oj7zbp4k@redhat.com> References: <20160907122339.GB28333@wunner.de> <1473260186-4500-1-git-send-email-pjones@redhat.com> <1473260186-4500-3-git-send-email-pjones@redhat.com> <20160915091822.GA16797@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20160915131305.5mhdpc6vql5nv2gw@redhat.com> <20160916094006.GD16797@codeblueprint.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160916094006.GD16797-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Fleming Cc: linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Ard Biesheuvel , Lukas Wunner List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:40:06AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep, at 09:13:05AM, Peter Jones wrote: > > > > 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? > > Because /sys/firmware/efi/spec_version is a new file, I'm totally > happy with printing a correct version string there. There's really no > need to maintain the version idiosyncrasy in new places. > > And given the extra code required to maintain backwards compatibility > for versions <= 2.6 but only in the boot paths, I think the simplest > solution is to drop this patch. Okay, that's fine by me since we now have the other interface. -- Peter