diff --git a/include/asm-v850/unaligned.h b/include/asm-v850/unaligned.h
index e30b186..53122b2 100644
--- a/include/asm-v850/unaligned.h
+++ b/include/asm-v850/unaligned.h
@@ -1,6 +1,4 @@
 /*
- * include/asm-v850/unaligned.h -- Unaligned memory access
- *
  *  Copyright (C) 2001  NEC Corporation
  *  Copyright (C) 2001  Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
  *
@@ -8,123 +6,17 @@
  * Public License.  See the file COPYING in the main directory of this
  * archive for more details.
  *
- * This file is a copy of the arm version, include/asm-arm/unaligned.h
- *
  * Note that some v850 chips support unaligned access, but it seems too
  * annoying to use.
  */
+#ifndef _ASM_V850_UNALIGNED_H
+#define _ASM_V850_UNALIGNED_H
 
-#ifndef __V850_UNALIGNED_H__
-#define __V850_UNALIGNED_H__
+#include <linux/unaligned/be_byteshift.h>
+#include <linux/unaligned/le_byteshift.h>
+#include <linux/unaligned/generic.h>
 
-#include <asm/types.h>
+#define get_unaligned	__get_unaligned_le
+#define put_unaligned	__put_unaligned_le
 
-extern int __bug_unaligned_x(void *ptr);
-
-/*
- * What is the most efficient way of loading/storing an unaligned value?
- *
- * That is the subject of this file.  Efficiency here is defined as
- * minimum code size with minimum register usage for the common cases.
- * It is currently not believed that long longs are common, so we
- * trade efficiency for the chars, shorts and longs against the long
- * longs.
- *
- * Current stats with gcc 2.7.2.2 for these functions:
- *
- *	ptrsize	get:	code	regs	put:	code	regs
- *	1		1	1		1	2
- *	2		3	2		3	2
- *	4		7	3		7	3
- *	8		20	6		16	6
- *
- * gcc 2.95.1 seems to code differently:
- *
- *	ptrsize	get:	code	regs	put:	code	regs
- *	1		1	1		1	2
- *	2		3	2		3	2
- *	4		7	4		7	4
- *	8		19	8		15	6
- *
- * which may or may not be more efficient (depending upon whether
- * you can afford the extra registers).  Hopefully the gcc 2.95
- * is inteligent enough to decide if it is better to use the
- * extra register, but evidence so far seems to suggest otherwise.
- *
- * Unfortunately, gcc is not able to optimise the high word
- * out of long long >> 32, or the low word from long long << 32
- */
-
-#define __get_unaligned_2(__p)					\
-	(__p[0] | __p[1] << 8)
-
-#define __get_unaligned_4(__p)					\
-	(__p[0] | __p[1] << 8 | __p[2] << 16 | __p[3] << 24)
-
-#define get_unaligned(ptr)					\
-	({							\
-		__typeof__(*(ptr)) __v;				\
-		__u8 *__p = (__u8 *)(ptr);			\
-		switch (sizeof(*(ptr))) {			\
-		case 1:	__v = *(ptr);			break;	\
-		case 2: __v = __get_unaligned_2(__p);	break;	\
-		case 4: __v = __get_unaligned_4(__p);	break;	\
-		case 8: {					\
-				unsigned int __v1, __v2;	\
-				__v2 = __get_unaligned_4((__p+4)); \
-				__v1 = __get_unaligned_4(__p);	\
-				__v = ((unsigned long long)__v2 << 32 | __v1);	\
-			}					\
-			break;					\
-		default: __v = __bug_unaligned_x(__p);	break;	\
-		}						\
-		__v;						\
-	})
-
-
-static inline void __put_unaligned_2(__u32 __v, register __u8 *__p)
-{
-	*__p++ = __v;
-	*__p++ = __v >> 8;
-}
-
-static inline void __put_unaligned_4(__u32 __v, register __u8 *__p)
-{
-	__put_unaligned_2(__v >> 16, __p + 2);
-	__put_unaligned_2(__v, __p);
-}
-
-static inline void __put_unaligned_8(const unsigned long long __v, register __u8 *__p)
-{
-	/*
-	 * tradeoff: 8 bytes of stack for all unaligned puts (2
-	 * instructions), or an extra register in the long long
-	 * case - go for the extra register.
-	 */
-	__put_unaligned_4(__v >> 32, __p+4);
-	__put_unaligned_4(__v, __p);
-}
-
-/*
- * Try to store an unaligned value as efficiently as possible.
- */
-#define put_unaligned(val,ptr)					\
-	({							\
-		switch (sizeof(*(ptr))) {			\
-		case 1:						\
-			*(ptr) = (val);				\
-			break;					\
-		case 2: __put_unaligned_2((val),(__u8 *)(ptr));	\
-			break;					\
-		case 4:	__put_unaligned_4((val),(__u8 *)(ptr));	\
-			break;					\
-		case 8:	__put_unaligned_8((val),(__u8 *)(ptr)); \
-			break;					\
-		default: __bug_unaligned_x(ptr);		\
-			break;					\
-		}						\
-		(void) 0;					\
-	})
-
-
-#endif /* __V850_UNALIGNED_H__ */
+#endif /* _ASM_V850_UNALIGNED_H */