On Thursday, 25 January 2018, Peter Maydell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 January 2018 at 21:57, Francisco Iglesias > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Coverity found that the variable tx_rx in the function > > xilinx_spips_flush_txfifo was being used uninitialized (CID 1383841). > This > > patch corrects this by always initializing tx_rx to zeros. > > > > Signed-off-by: Francisco Iglesias <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > v3. Change to report errors on the num_busses property via the Error** > > parameter when realizing the devices. > > --- > > v2. Add a sanity check on the num_busses property when realizing the > > devices. > > --- > > hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c b/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c > > index 85c5d0c..8af36ca 100644 > > --- a/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c > > +++ b/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c > > @@ -210,6 +210,9 @@ > > #define SNOOP_NONE 0xEE > > #define SNOOP_STRIPING 0 > > > > +#define MIN_NUM_BUSSES 1 > > +#define MAX_NUM_BUSSES 2 > > + > > static inline int num_effective_busses(XilinxSPIPS *s) > > { > > return (s->regs[R_LQSPI_CFG] & LQSPI_CFG_SEP_BUS && > > @@ -573,7 +576,7 @@ static void xilinx_spips_flush_txfifo(XilinxSPIPS > *s) > > for (;;) { > > int i; > > uint8_t tx = 0; > > - uint8_t tx_rx[num_effective_busses(s)]; > > + uint8_t tx_rx[MAX_NUM_BUSSES] = { 0 }; > > uint8_t dummy_cycles = 0; > > uint8_t addr_length; > > > > @@ -1221,6 +1224,19 @@ static void xilinx_spips_realize(DeviceState > *dev, Error **errp) > > > > DB_PRINT_L(0, "realized spips\n"); > > > > + if (s->num_busses > MAX_NUM_BUSSES) { > > + error_setg(errp, > > + "requested number of SPI busses %u exceeds maximum > %d", > > + s->num_busses, MAX_NUM_BUSSES); > > + return; > > + } > > + if (s->num_busses < MIN_NUM_BUSSES) { > > + error_setg(errp, > > + "requested number of SPI busses %u is below minimum > %d", > > + s->num_busses, MIN_NUM_BUSSES); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > The usual plural of "bus" is "buses", but since it's in the QOM > property name I guess we're stuck with "busses" here for consistency... > > > Applied to target-arm.next, thanks. > > -- PMM > Hi Peter, Thank you very much again for looking into this! Best regards, Francisco Iglesias
