From: John W. L. <lin...@tu...> - 2005-08-01 11:37:20
|
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 07:57:42AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, John W. Linville wrote: > > Fix-up some basic compile failures related to APUS. > > > > Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <lin...@tu...> > > --- > > The "asm volatile" fixes in zorro.h were actually warning fix-ups, but > > easier to just include all the fixes for that file in one patch... > > > > arch/ppc/kernel/head.S | 4 ++-- > > include/asm-ppc/zorro.h | 37 +++++++++++++++++-------------------- > > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > > --- linux-apus/include/asm-ppc/zorro.h.orig 2005-07-31 14:18:57.000000000 -0400 > > +++ linux-apus/include/asm-ppc/zorro.h 2005-07-31 14:36:47.000000000 -0400 > > @@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ static inline unsigned int z_readb(unsig > > { > > unsigned int ret; > > > > - asm volatile ("lbz%U1%X1 %0,%1; eieio" > > - : "=r" (ret) : "m" (*(unsigned char *)addr)); > > + __asm__ __volatile__ ("lbz%U1%X1 %0,%1; eieio" > > + : "=r" (ret) : "m" (*(unsigned char *)addr)); > > What warning do you get with the `asm volatile'? Actually, the warnings were specifically with the arguments in the write routines. I noticed that "__asm__ __volatile__" seems to be the more common usage , so I just changed it for consistency in all the routines. Is this problematic? Is there a meaningful difference between the two? I just presumed that "asm volatile" was an older version of the same thing? Feel free to correct me... John -- John W. Linville lin...@tu... |