On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Peter Maydell wrote:
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).
Oops, stupid mistake. Indeed, Coverity is right, fall through is not
intended here. Sent a patch, thank you for spotting it.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
