* [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-08 18:44 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-08 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wolfgang Grandegger, Marc Kleine-Budde, David S. Miller,
Nicolas Ferre, Alexandre Belloni, Ludovic Desroches
Cc: netdev, Gustavo A. R. Silva, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-can
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
cases where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
is what GCC is expecting to find.
Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
-Wimplicit-fallthrough.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
---
drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
--- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
+++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
@@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
}
- case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
+ /* fall through */
+ case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
/*
* from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
* to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
@@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
- case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
+ /* fall through */
+ case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
break;
--
2.20.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-08 18:44 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2019-02-08 18:55 ` Sergei Shtylyov
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Sergei Shtylyov @ 2019-02-08 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva, Wolfgang Grandegger, Marc Kleine-Budde,
David S. Miller, Nicolas Ferre, Alexandre Belloni,
Ludovic Desroches
Cc: linux-can, netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
Hello!
On 02/08/2019 09:44 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
> is what GCC is expecting to find.
>
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
> }
> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
> + /* fall through */
Why do we need this comment at all? Just remove it, that's all.
> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> /*
> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
> + /* fall through */
Again, we don;t need it here.
> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
> break;
MBR, Serfei
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-08 18:55 ` Sergei Shtylyov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Sergei Shtylyov @ 2019-02-08 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva, Wolfgang Grandegger, Marc Kleine-Budde,
David S. Miller, Nicolas Ferre, Alexandre Belloni,
Ludovic Desroches
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-can
Hello!
On 02/08/2019 09:44 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
> is what GCC is expecting to find.
>
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
> }
> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
> + /* fall through */
Why do we need this comment at all? Just remove it, that's all.
> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> /*
> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
> + /* fall through */
Again, we don;t need it here.
> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
> break;
MBR, Serfei
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-08 18:55 ` Sergei Shtylyov
@ 2019-02-09 19:17 ` Sergei Shtylyov
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Sergei Shtylyov @ 2019-02-09 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva, Wolfgang Grandegger, Marc Kleine-Budde,
David S. Miller, Nicolas Ferre, Alexandre Belloni,
Ludovic Desroches
Cc: linux-can, netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 02/08/2019 09:55 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
>> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
>> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
>> is what GCC is expecting to find.
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
>> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
>> }
>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>> + /* fall through */
>
> Why do we need this comment at all? Just remove it, that's all.
>
>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> /*
>> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
>> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
>> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
>> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
>> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>> + /* fall through */
>
> Again, we don;t need it here.
>
>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
>> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
>> break;
Ignore me, I misread the code...
MBR, Sergei
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-09 19:17 ` Sergei Shtylyov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Sergei Shtylyov @ 2019-02-09 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva, Wolfgang Grandegger, Marc Kleine-Budde,
David S. Miller, Nicolas Ferre, Alexandre Belloni,
Ludovic Desroches
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-can
On 02/08/2019 09:55 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
>> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
>> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
>> is what GCC is expecting to find.
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
>> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
>> }
>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>> + /* fall through */
>
> Why do we need this comment at all? Just remove it, that's all.
>
>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> /*
>> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
>> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
>> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
>> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
>> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>> + /* fall through */
>
> Again, we don;t need it here.
>
>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
>> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
>> break;
Ignore me, I misread the code...
MBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-08 18:44 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
(?)
@ 2019-02-11 9:03 ` Nicolas.Ferre
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas.Ferre @ 2019-02-11 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gustavo, wg, mkl, davem, alexandre.belloni, Ludovic.Desroches
Cc: linux-can, netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 08/02/2019 at 19:44, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
> is what GCC is expecting to find.
>
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Looks good to me:
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
> }
> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
> + /* fall through */
> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> /*
> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
> + /* fall through */
> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
> break;
>
--
Nicolas Ferre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-11 9:03 ` Nicolas.Ferre
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas.Ferre @ 2019-02-11 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gustavo, wg, mkl, davem, alexandre.belloni, Ludovic.Desroches
Cc: linux-can, netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 08/02/2019 at 19:44, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
> is what GCC is expecting to find.
>
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Looks good to me:
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
> }
> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
> + /* fall through */
> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> /*
> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
> + /* fall through */
> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
> break;
>
--
Nicolas Ferre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-11 9:03 ` Nicolas.Ferre
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas.Ferre @ 2019-02-11 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gustavo, wg, mkl, davem, alexandre.belloni, Ludovic.Desroches
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-can
On 08/02/2019 at 19:44, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
> is what GCC is expecting to find.
>
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Looks good to me:
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
> }
> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
> + /* fall through */
> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> /*
> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
> + /* fall through */
> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
> break;
>
--
Nicolas Ferre
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-11 9:03 ` Nicolas.Ferre
@ 2019-02-14 21:33 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-14 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, alexandre.belloni,
Ludovic.Desroches
Cc: linux-can, netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 2/11/19 3:03 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
> On 08/02/2019 at 19:44, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
>> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
>> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
>> is what GCC is expecting to find.
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>
> Looks good to me:
> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>
Thanks, Nicolas.
--
Gustavo
>> ---
>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
>> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
>> }
>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>> + /* fall through */
>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> /*
>> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
>> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
>> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
>> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
>> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>> + /* fall through */
>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
>> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
>> break;
>>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-14 21:33 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-14 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, alexandre.belloni,
Ludovic.Desroches
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-can
On 2/11/19 3:03 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
> On 08/02/2019 at 19:44, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
>> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
>> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
>> is what GCC is expecting to find.
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>
> Looks good to me:
> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>
Thanks, Nicolas.
--
Gustavo
>> ---
>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
>> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
>> }
>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>> + /* fall through */
>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> /*
>> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
>> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
>> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
>> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
>> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>> + /* fall through */
>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
>> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
>> break;
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread