xtensa: Change unaligned access to use packed struct implementation

Signed-off-by Harvey Harrison <[email protected]>

---
There are only 3 arches that use the memmove-based implementation, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason not to use the struct implementation.

Chris?

 include/asm-xtensa/unaligned.h |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

include/asm-xtensa/unaligned.h +2 -2

index 8f3424f..1a242b2 100644
@@ -11,13 +11,13 @@
 #define _ASM_XTENSA_UNALIGNED_H
 
 #ifdef __XTENSA_EL__
-# include <linux/unaligned/le_memmove.h>
+# include <linux/unaligned/le_struct.h>
 # include <linux/unaligned/be_byteshift.h>
 # include <linux/unaligned/generic.h>
 # define get_unaligned	__get_unaligned_le
 # define put_unaligned	__put_unaligned_le
 #elif defined(__XTENSA_EB__)
-# include <linux/unaligned/be_memmove.h>
+# include <linux/unaligned/be_struct.h>
 # include <linux/unaligned/le_byteshift.h>
 # include <linux/unaligned/generic.h>
 # define get_unaligned	__get_unaligned_be

Hi Harvey,

Please allow me a couple of days to look into it. I don't know the historic reasons why the memmove variant was chosen.

Thanks,
-Chris