From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM (Webmail.amiindia.co.in [203.199.198.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0778921A0BA9C for ; Tue, 23 May 2017 05:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM (IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1AB82047; Tue, 23 May 2017 17:57:36 +0530 (IST) Received: from IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM (IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06FD82046; Tue, 23 May 2017 17:57:36 +0530 (IST) Received: from webmail.amiindia.co.in (venus1.in.megatrends.com [10.0.0.5]) by IMSVA.IN.MEGATRENDS.COM (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 23 May 2017 17:57:36 +0530 (IST) Received: from VENUS2.in.megatrends.com ([fe80::2002:4a07:4f17:c09b]) by VENUS1.in.megatrends.com ([fe80::951:7975:6ecf:eae5%14]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Tue, 23 May 2017 17:55:37 +0530 From: Ramesh R. To: GN Keshava , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Thread-Topic: [edk2] UEFI shell vs UEFI BIOS version compatibility Thread-Index: AQHS07ginhPDaDDeOEOQfdb3HoUECaIB109Q Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 12:25:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.0.84.10] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.1600-8.1.0.1062-23086.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--3.458-5.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--3.458-5.0-31-10 X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.1600-8.1.1062-23086.007 X-TMASE-Result: 10--3.457700-10.000000 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: VPleTT1nwdSXKs94NAOH8mgws6g0ewz2nophrTcsI7ZuOzObMX3aCKSZ V8xpDzhZvfkcCo3pe5WMfSK2VKM/FUL2oRfsBIKxbc297PAGtWZQCOsAlaxN754tE8EarD+++Q2 9tVFxbOiDf9L0VsOPxi2QD7fdlz93f/JYo84wKI3IpMSwJEh3JQXXmzqmsIi77cbPa1WAQUcONn COtDoJBfqPqvXNx0BFHmGY/o4z88lDq2SVEk72KAtuKBGekqUpm+MB6kaZ2g7g8htU5UfcV1J5D mf7AUuF+iIe7PwLcfz4nq3Y3jc9vRkiFyV6A4BWl+ZjaItrCsY24mf4+FzqnSVOLB2KulT0YV5z FSek1kd4SbaApgpjS6MxH2cOIadTOvOMzlPWcq3lRGoHcbPheOHmS6fG01P0 X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0,39:0-0 Subject: Re: UEFI shell vs UEFI BIOS version compatibility X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 12:25:49 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Old Shell was installing EFI_SHELL_INTERFACE and new shell is installing = the EFI_SHELL_PARAMETERS_PROTOCOL on the shell application.=20 Thanks, Ramesh -----Original Message----- From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of GN K= eshava Sent: 23 May 2017 17:01 To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org Subject: [edk2] UEFI shell vs UEFI BIOS version compatibility Hi all, I was using older version of UEFI shell (older EFI shell inside EdkShellBin= Pkg). It was working fine with my testing PCs (Intel core i5 (Dell Optiplex= 7020) (UEFI ver 2.31) as well as Intel Gigabit motherboard (UEFI ver 2.4))= . I'm able to load any driver efi and use it. Now I'm trying newer UEFI shell (UEFI Interactive shell v 2.2, the newer on= e in ShellBinPkg). I'm trying to load my driver (and default Fat.efi driver downloaded from gi= thub as well) It is working fine with Intel Gigabit motherboard (UEFI ver 2= .4). I'm able to load the driver and use it. But if I try to load the same efi driver on newer UEFI shell v2.2 on Intel = core i5 (Dell Optiplex 7020) (UEFI ver 2.31), display is just turning black= , and I'm not able to use the shell any further. (But I'm able to load my c= ustom shell application!) What could be the issue? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks. With regards, Keshava _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel