On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> I left in the volatiles, since I don't
> understand why they where needed. The memory always seems to be access
> with in_8 and out_8, which are declared volatile. But they could be
> there to fix a very specific bug.
It's very unlikely that
Here is an optional bonus patch that cleans up most of the checkpatch
warnings in the common code. I left in the volatiles, since I don't
understand why they where needed. The memory always seems to be access
with in_8 and out_8, which are declared volatile. But they could be
there to fix a ver
