From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] ASoC: wm8994: Mark expected switch fall-through Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 11:56:12 -0500 Message-ID: <684a4fe9-6818-d19c-e7b7-fb8d592a0cee@embeddedor.com> References: <8e3df79b1dca92d49fd9d5c97391d31814ab40f9.1533151956.git.gustavo@embeddedor.com> <30613.1533313609@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <85d918a5-6a14-ead0-4d0e-d63b5e43ad81@embeddedor.com> <20180803164504.GF6591@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180803164504.GF6591@sirena.org.uk> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, Liam Girdwood , Jaroslav Kysela , patches@opensource.cirrus.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 08/03/2018 11:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 11:41:39AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> On 08/03/2018 11:26 AM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 14:56:16 -0500, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" said: > >>> Wait, what? This looks like the sort of bug -Wimplicit-fallthrough is supposed >>> to catch. Unless for 'case WM8994_SYSCLK_OPCLK:' we actually do want to do a >>> whole bunch of snd_soc_component_update_bits() calls and then return -EINVAL >>> whether or not that case succeeded? > >> Yeah, it seems like a bug. Can someone confirm this? > >> Notice that this code has been there since 2010. > > Basically nobody ever uses OPCLK so I'd be susprised if anyone ever > noticed. > I see. I wonder what's the best approach in this case. Should that code be removed instead of 'fixed'? Thanks -- Gustavo