On 6 March 2018 at 04:01, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > From: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu> > > 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 <bala...@eik.bme.hu> > [dwg: Remove hwaddr from trace-events, that doesn't work with some > trace backends] > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> + 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? thanks -- PMM
