Re: [patch linux-apus 2.6.12] apus: fix-up compile failures

[John W. L. <lin...@tu...>]

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...