On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 16 February 2018 at 10:06, David Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:
From: BALATON Zoltan <[email protected]>
These devices are found in newer SoCs based on 440 core e.g. the 460EX
(http://www.embeddeddeveloper.com/assets/processors/amcc/datasheets/
PP460EX_DS2063.pdf)
Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Gibson <[email protected]>
---
+static target_ulong sdram_size(uint32_t bcr)
+{
+ target_ulong size;
+ int sh;
+
+ sh = 1024 - ((bcr >> 6) & 0x3ff);
+ if (sh == 0) {
+ size = -1;
+ } else {
+ size = 8 * M_BYTE * sh;
+ }
+
+ return size;
+}
Hi. Coverity (CID 1390588) points out that the calculation
"1024 - ((bcr >> 6) & 0x3ff" must result in a value of sh
between 1 and 1024, and therefore the "sh == 0" branch of
the if() is dead code.
Is there an error in the size calculation here?
Likely this is not entirely correct (see also the FIXME comment in
sam460ex.c:73) but I still could not obtain the user manual of the SoC
where I think this is documented so I don't really know what's the correct
way here and I don't have time at the moment to try to guess from
accessible sources (such as Linux and U-Boot). So for now I'd leave it as
it is until I can find out what would be correct here but if the warning
from Coverity is in your way feel free to patch this to remove the sh == 0
which should be OK if it can't ever happen.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
