On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 6 March 2018 at 04:01, David Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:
From: BALATON Zoltan <[email protected]>
This is the PCIX controller found in newer 440 core SoCs e.g. the
AMMC 460EX. The device tree refers to this as plb-pcix compared to
the plb-pci controller in older 440 SoCs.
Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <[email protected]>
[dwg: Remove hwaddr from trace-events, that doesn't work with some
trace backends]
Signed-off-by: David Gibson <[email protected]>
+ case PCIX0_PIM2SAL:
+ s->pim[2].sa &= 0xffffffff00000000ULL;
+ s->pim[2].sa = val;
+ ppc440_pcix_update_pim(s, 2);
+ break;
Coverity (CID1390577) points out that the "s->pim[2].sa = val;"
overwrites the value set by the &= line, making it pointless.
Should this be "|= val" like the other cases in this switch?
Yes this is a typo and I meant |= here like in other cases. I'll send a
patch to correct this with the next batch of changes. Thanks for spotting
it.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
