From: AKASHI Takahiro Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 21:00:34 +0900 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 05/14] cmd: efishell: add devices command In-Reply-To: References: <20181105090653.7409-1-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <20181105090653.7409-6-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> <89822a49-e099-5bb4-1bbd-268518bc3064@suse.de> <20181203070217.GD28995@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20181225120033.GM14405@linaro.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 04:11:14AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > 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 > >>> --- > >>> 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? Back to your original comment: Why do you need a local copy of this? Do you think we should use systab.boottime,runtime instead? > As mentioned in the other email thread, I think that we should > definitely evaluate to add the edk2 shell as built-in option. Do you expect that I will add a new config, say, CONFIG_EFI_SHELL_PATH? -Takahiro Akashi > 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