Hi Stefan,
2009/11/24 Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de>: > 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 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 <li...@bohmer.net> >> > --- >> > include/linux/unaligned/access_ok.h | 48 >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 >> > deletions(-) >> >> Applied, thanks. > > This shouldn't have been applied. Remy did send a different version of this > patch (according to my suggestion), which is already included: > > > commit 25793f76bf9a7be59c9415ef0f78d034e8d53dae > Author: Remy Bohmer <li...@bohmer.net> > Date: Thu Oct 29 12:29:37 2009 +0100 > > ARM: Use Linux version for unaligned access code > > The asm-arm/unaligned.h includes linux/unaligned/access_ok.h > This file is unsafe to be used on ARM, since it does an unaligned memory > accesses which fails on ARM. > > Lookin at Linux the basic difference seems to be the header > "include/asm-arm/unaligned.h". The Linux version of "unaligned.h" > does *not* include "access_ok.h" at all. It includes "le_byteshift.h" > and "be_byteshift.h" instead. > > Signed-off-by: Remy Bohmer <li...@bohmer.net> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> > > > > Remy, please correct me if I'm wrong here. You are right. This patch should not have been applied. The other patch was better. Kind regards, Remy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
