On 6 March 2018 at 04:01, David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
From: BALATON Zoltan <address@hidden>
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 <address@hidden>
[dwg: Remove hwaddr from trace-events, that doesn't work with some
trace backends]
Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
+ 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?