On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Philippe De Muyter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:33:36PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Do we also want
>>
>> select HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS if (!COLDFIRE && !M68000)
>
> Sorry, I did not follow what happened to unaligned accesses, but
> CPU32 family (at least 68340) crashes on unaligned accesses.
We don't seem to have CONFIG_M68340 in arch/m68k/Kconfig.cpu?
But Freescale's website confirms both 68340 and 68360 are CPU32.
arch/m68k/include/asm/unaligned.h assumes CPU32 (CONFIG_MCPU32)
can do unaligned accesses:
#if defined(CONFIG_COLDFIRE) || defined(CONFIG_M68000)
#include <linux/unaligned/be_struct.h>
#include <linux/unaligned/le_byteshift.h>
#include <linux/unaligned/generic.h>
#define get_unaligned __get_unaligned_be
#define put_unaligned __put_unaligned_be
#else
/*
* The m68k can do unaligned accesses itself.
*/
#include <linux/unaligned/access_ok.h>
#include <linux/unaligned/generic.h>
#define get_unaligned __get_unaligned_be
#define put_unaligned __put_unaligned_be
#endif
Is this wrong?
However, for CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
the question is not whether unaligned accesses are supported, but
whether they are more efficient than byte copies when copying larger blocks.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
