On 03.12.18 08:02, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 12:46:20AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> >> On 05.11.18 10:06, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> "devices" command prints all the uefi variables on the system. >>> => efishell devices >>> Device Name >>> ============================================ >>> /VenHw(e61d73b9-a384-4acc-aeab-82e828f3628b) >>> /VenHw(e61d73b9-a384-4acc-aeab-82e828f3628b)/SD(0)/SD(0) >>> /VenHw(e61d73b9-a384-4acc-aeab-82e828f3628b)/SD(0)/SD(0)/\ >>> HD(2,MBR,0x086246ba,0x40800,0x3f800) >>> /VenHw(e61d73b9-a384-4acc-aeab-82e828f3628b)/SD(0)/SD(0)/\ >>> HD(1,MBR,0x086246ba,0x800,0x40000) >>> >>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> cmd/efishell.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 87 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/cmd/efishell.c b/cmd/efishell.c >>> index abc8216c7bd6..f4fa3fdf28a7 100644 >>> --- a/cmd/efishell.c >>> +++ b/cmd/efishell.c >>> @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ >>> >>> DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >>> >>> +static const struct efi_boot_services *bs; >> >> Why do you need a local copy of this? > > Good point. It's because I followed the way boot manager does :) > > I think that it would be good to do so since either boot manager or > efishell should ultimately be an independent efi application > in its nature. > > What do you think?
As mentioned in the other email thread, I think that we should definitely evaluate to add the edk2 shell as built-in option. That way for the "full-fledged" shell experience, your built-in code is not needed. But I still believe it would be useful for quick and built-in debugging. Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
