From: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
To: "Carsey, Jaben" <jaben.carsey@intel.com>
Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>,
"Ni, Ruiyu" <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
"Kinney, Michael D" <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: portability of ShellPkg
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 18:41:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180905174150.udtzzw3pm446dwqo@bivouac.eciton.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9FF5C684-0DA6-45B0-93D8-F6358ACF1C7A@intel.com>
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 05:30:23PM +0000, Carsey, Jaben wrote:
> How does removing a lib from the components section affect the shell binary output?
Maybe it doesn't and I'm barking up the wrong tree? Unfortunately,
the only thing that means is we don't have a trivial workaround.
/
Leif
> Is the asset at compile time?
>
> Jaben
>
> > On Sep 5, 2018, at 10:26 AM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > (This is partly a summary of discussions that have been held on IRC
> > and offline, with Alex Graf and Mike Kinney.)
> >
> > The UEFI Shell, as produced by the contents of ShellPkg, is needed for
> > running the UEFI SCT. This has never been problematic before - but now
> > we are starting to run SCT on the U-Boot implementation of the UEFI
> > interfaces, certain implicit assumptions may need to be made explicit,
> > and perhaps reevaluated.
> >
> > My feeling is the following:
> > - The MinUefiShell variant should be sufficient to run SCT.
> > - The UEFI Shell as provided by ShellPkg (any flavour) should run on
> > any valid UEFI implementation. Where underlying functionality is
> > missing for certain commands, those commands should be
> > degraded/disabled to let remaining commands function.
> >
> > Ideally, I would like to see a Readme.md in ShellPkg, basically
> > providing a mission statement. I could write one, but I expect the
> > people who actually maintain it would be better suited :)
> >
> > We currently have an issue with running the shell on U-Boot because
> > even MinUefiShell pulls in UefiShellDebug1CommandsLib.inf. This
> > appears to be inadvertent, since it is also included a few lines
> > further down inside an !ifndef $(NO_SHELL_PROFILES) guard.
> > So I would propose the following patch (and can send it out properly
> > if the maintainers agree):
> >
> > diff --git a/ShellPkg/ShellPkg.dsc b/ShellPkg/ShellPkg.dsc
> > index 59dd07e0ae..c852abd3f7 100644
> > --- a/ShellPkg/ShellPkg.dsc
> > +++ b/ShellPkg/ShellPkg.dsc
> > @@ -101,7 +101,6 @@ [Components]
> > ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellLevel3CommandsLib/UefiShellLevel3CommandsLib.inf
> > ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellDriver1CommandsLib/UefiShellDriver1CommandsLib.inf
> > ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellInstall1CommandsLib/UefiShellInstall1CommandsLib.inf
> > - ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellDebug1CommandsLib/UefiShellDebug1CommandsLib.inf
> > ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellNetwork1CommandsLib/UefiShellNetwork1CommandsLib.inf
> > ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellNetwork2CommandsLib/UefiShellNetwork2CommandsLib.inf
> >
> > The reason this causes a problem is because this module has a
> > dependency on HobLib, which ASSERTS if it does not find any HOBs lying
> > around. Since HOBs are a PI concept rather than a UEFI concept,
> > ideally we would not terminate the shell if they are missing. However,
> > since the HobLib is generic to EDK2, we also shouldn't just go
> > stripping ASSERTs out of it. The above patch gives us a way of
> > unblocking the SCT on U-Boot UEFI while we consider what to do about
> > the bigger question.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > /
> > Leif
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-05 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-05 17:25 portability of ShellPkg Leif Lindholm
2018-09-05 17:30 ` Carsey, Jaben
2018-09-05 17:41 ` Leif Lindholm [this message]
2018-09-05 18:03 ` Andrew Fish
2018-09-05 18:05 ` Carsey, Jaben
2018-09-05 18:20 ` Andrew Fish
2018-09-05 18:23 ` Carsey, Jaben
2018-09-05 18:33 ` Andrew Fish
2018-09-05 18:53 ` Carsey, Jaben
2018-09-05 18:43 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-09-05 19:47 ` Andrew Fish
2018-09-06 2:34 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2018-09-06 9:56 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-09-06 17:17 ` Kinney, Michael D
2018-09-06 22:31 ` Andrew Fish
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180905174150.udtzzw3pm446dwqo@bivouac.eciton.net \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox