From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tom <Tom.Rix@windriver.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:17:38 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Make the generic unaligned access code safe
 for unaligned access
In-Reply-To: <3efb10970910290734j4cad6624i59fe35270d1cd957@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1256764421-27799-1-git-send-email-linux@bohmer.net>	
	<1256764421-27799-3-git-send-email-linux@bohmer.net>	
	<1256764421-27799-4-git-send-email-linux@bohmer.net>	
	<200910290601.11199.sr@denx.de>	
	<3efb10970910290424oe379175j1e37f490c32bbea@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4AE9A6EA.7000504@windriver.com>
	<3efb10970910290734j4cad6624i59fe35270d1cd957@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4AE9B212.4070701@windriver.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

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 "be_byteshift.h" instead. And I would
>>>> really like to keep this in sync with Linux if possible.
>>>> So why not do it this way (totally untested):
>> I see the patch has been reposted.
>> Has it been tested ?
> 
> Yes, I have tested it, that is why I reposted it according to the
> suggestion of Stefan... :-)
> 
> Remy

No MAKEALL arm regressions.
pushed to arm/next.

Thanks,
Tom