On 30/10/2018 18:03, Peter Maydell wrote: > Coverity points out in CID 1390588 that the test for sh == 0 > in sdram_size() can never fire, because we calculate sh with > sh = 1024 - ((bcr >> 6) & 0x3ff); > which must result in a value between 1 and 1024 inclusive. > > Without the relevant manual for the SoC, we're not completely > sure of the correct behaviour here, but we can remove the > dead code without changing how QEMU currently behaves. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > --- > We had a discussion about this coverity error a while back: > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-04/msg05187.html > I'd just like to squash the Coverity warning, I think. > > hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c | 6 +----- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c b/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c > index 09ccda548f3..9360f781cef 100644 > --- a/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c > +++ b/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c > @@ -559,11 +559,7 @@ static target_ulong sdram_size(uint32_t bcr) > int sh; > > sh = 1024 - ((bcr >> 6) & 0x3ff); > - if (sh == 0) { > - size = -1; > - } else { > - size = 8 * MiB * sh; > - } > + size = 8 * MiB * sh; > > return size; > } >
Reviewed-by: Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com>
