Dear Stefan Roese,
In message <200911240505.25360...@denx.de> you wrote:
>
> This shouldn't have been applied. Remy did send a different version of this
> patch (according to my suggestion), which is already included:
Argh... Thanks for pointing out. Fortunately no damage was done as I
did not
Hi Stefan,
2009/11/24 Stefan Roese :
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> On Monday 23 November 2009 23:46:38 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Remy Bohmer,
>>
>> In message <1256764421-27799-4-git-send-email-li...@bohmer.net> you wrote:
>> > The current generic code for handling unaligned access assumes that
>> > the
Hi Wolfgang,
On Monday 23 November 2009 23:46:38 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Remy Bohmer,
>
> In message <1256764421-27799-4-git-send-email-li...@bohmer.net> you wrote:
> > The current generic code for handling unaligned access assumes that
> > the processor can properly handle unaligned accesses
Dear Remy Bohmer,
In message <1256764421-27799-4-git-send-email-li...@bohmer.net> you wrote:
> The current generic code for handling unaligned access assumes that
> the processor can properly handle unaligned accesses itself.
> This is at least not the case for ARM, which results in runtime
> erro
Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Thursday 29 October 2009 16:34:43 Remy Bohmer wrote:
>>> No MAKEALL arm regressions.
>>> pushed to arm/next.
>> Did you notice this is a bug fix?
>> Shouldn't it go in this release?
>
> Yes, I would recommend to push this into this release as well.
>
This is fine with m
On Thursday 29 October 2009 16:34:43 Remy Bohmer wrote:
> > No MAKEALL arm regressions.
> > pushed to arm/next.
>
> Did you notice this is a bug fix?
> Shouldn't it go in this release?
Yes, I would recommend to push this into this release as well.
Cheers,
Stefan
--
DENX Software Engineering Gm
Hi Tom,
> No MAKEALL arm regressions.
> pushed to arm/next.
Did you notice this is a bug fix?
Shouldn't it go in this release?
Remy
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Remy Bohmer wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
Looking at the Linux ARM
version, the basic difference seems to be the header
"include/asm-arm/unaligned.h" which includes this file. The Linux
version of "unaligned.h" does *not* include "access_ok.h" at all. It
includes "le_byteshift.h" and
Hi Tom,
>>> Looking at the Linux ARM
>>> version, the basic difference seems to be the header
>>> "include/asm-arm/unaligned.h" which includes this file. The Linux
>>> version of "unaligned.h" does *not* include "access_ok.h" at all. It
>>> includes "le_byteshift.h" and "be_byteshift.h" instead. A
Remy Bohmer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2009/10/29 Stefan Roese :
>> Hi Remy,
>>
>> On Wednesday 28 October 2009 22:13:38 Remy Bohmer wrote:
>>> The current generic code for handling unaligned access assumes that
>>> the processor can properly handle unaligned accesses itself.
>>> This is at least not the ca
Hi,
2009/10/29 Stefan Roese :
> Hi Remy,
>
> On Wednesday 28 October 2009 22:13:38 Remy Bohmer wrote:
>> The current generic code for handling unaligned access assumes that
>> the processor can properly handle unaligned accesses itself.
>> This is at least not the case for ARM, which results in ru
Hi Remy,
On Wednesday 28 October 2009 22:13:38 Remy Bohmer wrote:
> The current generic code for handling unaligned access assumes that
> the processor can properly handle unaligned accesses itself.
> This is at least not the case for ARM, which results in runtime
> errors.
>
> Rewrite it such th
The current generic code for handling unaligned access assumes that
the processor can properly handle unaligned accesses itself.
This is at least not the case for ARM, which results in runtime
errors.
Rewrite it such that it works for ARM as well.
Signed-off-by: Remy Bohmer
---
include/linux/un
13 matches
Mail list logo
