NShell is the "new" version of the EDK Shell. That was not the first shell written for EFI usage.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier Martin [mailto:olivier.mar...@arm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 4:22 AM > To: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [edk2] shell questions > Importance: High > > Yes I am guessing nshell means New Shell: > > $ grep -i nshell EdkShellPkg/EdkShellPkg.dsc > $(EDK_SHELL_DIR)/newshell/nshell.inf > > But I cannot help with the reason why it is new. > > If you want a reason why there is no AArch64/ARM64 binaries in > EdkShellBinPkg/Bin/. I can give you one. > Because ARM architectures (AArch32 and AArch64 also sometimes named > ARM32 and ARM64) are pretty new in the EDK(1|2) history I did not want to > bother to fully support much EDK1 and EdkCompatiabilityPkg. My main > blocker was UEFI SCT which was only working on EDK Shell. But since I > upgraded UEFI SCT to also work on UEFI Shell, I had no reason to continue to > support EDK Shell. > In practical, I could have easily add EdkShellBinPkg/Bin/AArch64 because I can > already build EdkShellBinPkg/FullShell/AArch64. And I am guessing > EdkShellBinPkg/Bin/Arm/* binaries are really old... > > If you want some fresh EDK Shell binaries for AArch32 and AArch64 I could > update them. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Blibbet [mailto:blib...@gmail.com] > Sent: 27 May 2015 01:18 > To: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [edk2] shell questions > > > Hi, > > I'm trying to write up a document on how to buid a UEFI 'boot disk', trying to > target EFI 1.x as well as UEFI 2.x systems, for all architectures UEFI > supports. > One goal is to use pre-built binaries, for sysadmins, so I don't want to > resort > to telling user to compile their own binaries, if at all possible. > > I don't see any docs as part of the UEFI Forum specs or RodsBooks web site. > If I missed the proper docs, please give me an URL. > > I have a few questions about which binaries to use, and some pre-EDK2 > historical usage, please. > > Q0) If I want to use full (not minimal) pre-built TianoCore binaries for > shell, to > use on EFI 1.x systems I need to use: > * edk2/trunk/edk2/EdkShellBinPkg/FullShell/Ia32/Shell_Full.efi > * edk2/trunk/edk2/EdkShellBinPkg/FullShell/X64/Shell_Full.efi > * edk2/trunk/edk2/EdkShellBinPkg/FullShell/Arm/Shell_Full.efi > * edk2/trunk/edk2/EdkShellBinPkg/FullShell/AArch64/Shell_Full.efi > * edk2/trunk/edk2/EdkShellBinPkg/FullShell/Ipf/Shell_Full.efi > and for UEFI 2.x systems, I need to use: > * edk2/trunk/edk2/ShellBinPkg/UefiShell/Ia32/Shell.efi > * edk2/trunk/edk2/ShellBinPkg/UefiShell/X64/Shell.efi > * edk2/trunk/edk2/ShellBinPkg/UefiShell/Arm/Shell.efi > * edk2/trunk/edk2/ShellBinPkg/UefiShell/AArch64/Shell.efi > Renamed to Shell.efi and put in it's proper ESP subdirectory. Correct? > > Q1) Unlike oher archs, I don't see any > edk2/trunk/edk2/ShellBinPkg/UfiShell built for Itanium. How does someone > build a UEFI boot disk that works on Itanium, if there's no provided shell? > Did > TianoCore codebase stop supporting Itanium binary releases, and is there an > alternate source of Itanium binaries from Intel? > > Q2) why is it called 'NShell', does N mean "New"? Newer than what, what > was the old EFI shell called? Or is this New as in replacement for MS-DOS / > OS/2 shell? > > Q3) Why are the x86, x64, and IPF binaries for older EDK Contrib and EDK > apparently mirrored? Both have > Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell, why use one tree -vs- the > other? > > edkcontrib/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/x64/Shel > l_Full.efi > edkcontrib/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/x64/Shel > l.efi > edkcontrib/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ia32/She > ll_Full.efi > edkcontrib/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ia32/She > ll.efi > edkcontrib/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ipf/Shell > _Full.efi > edkcontrib/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ipf/Shell > .efi > > efidevkit/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/x64/Shell_ > Full.efi > efidevkit/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/x64/Shell. > efi > efidevkit/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ia32/Shell > _Full.efi > efidevkit/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ia32/Shell. > efi > efidevkit/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ipf/Shell_ > Full.efi > efidevkit/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ipf/Shell.e > fi > > Q4) Why does some older releases (EDK, EDK Contrib, EFI Toolkit) -- and only > ARM32 on new EDK2 releases -- have the shell called "NShell.efi" > where later it is called "Shell.efi" (or other min/full variations)? > Especially why only ARM32 on EDK2? > > edk2/trunk/edk2/EdkShellBinPkg/Bin/Arm/NShell.efi > > efi-toolkit/trunk/efi-toolkit/binaries/em64t/NShell.efi > efi-toolkit/trunk/efi-toolkit/binaries/nt32/NShell.efi > efi-toolkit/trunk/efi-toolkit/binaries/bios32/NShell.efi > efi-toolkit/trunk/efi-toolkit/binaries/sal64/NShell.efi > > edkcontrib/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ia32/Ap > ps/NShell.efi > edkcontrib/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ipf/Apps > /NShell.efi > edkcontrib/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/x64/App > s/NShell.efi > efidevkit/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ia32/Apps > /NShell.efi > efidevkit/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/ipf/Apps/ > NShell.efi > efidevkit/trunk/Edk/Other/Maintained/Application/UefiShell/bin/x64/Apps/ > NShell.efi > > Thanks! > Lee > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel > > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, > please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any > other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any > medium. Thank you. > > ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, > Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 ARM Holdings plc, > Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in > England & Wales, Company No: 2548782 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
