On 11 January 2018 at 04:59, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > From: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu> > > These are not really implemented (just return zero or default values) > but add these so guests accessing them can run. > > Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu> > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> > --- > hw/display/sm501.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/hw/display/sm501.c b/hw/display/sm501.c > index b9b611131e..4f7dc59b25 100644 > --- a/hw/display/sm501.c > +++ b/hw/display/sm501.c > @@ -795,6 +795,8 @@ static uint64_t sm501_system_config_read(void *opaque, > hwaddr addr, > case SM501_ARBTRTN_CONTROL: > ret = s->arbitration_control; > break; > + case SM501_COMMAND_LIST_STATUS: > + ret = 0x00180002; /* FIFOs are empty, everything idle */ > case SM501_IRQ_MASK: > ret = s->irq_mask; > break;
Is this new case missing a "break;" statement? Coverity points out that we fall through and overwrite the previous assignment to 'ret' (CID 1385154). thanks -- PMM
