From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gustavo@embeddedor.com (Gustavo A. R. Silva) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:09:37 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] mtd: nuc900_nand: mark expected switch fall-through In-Reply-To: <20180718100309.49c5452a@xps13> References: <20180710132902.GA13541@embeddedor.com> <20180718100309.49c5452a@xps13> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Miquel, On 07/18/2018 03:03 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Gustavo, > > Prefix should be "mtd: rawnand: nuc900:" > Oh OK. I'll fix it. > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" wrote on Tue, 10 Jul > 2018 08:29:02 -0500: > >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >> where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1471717 ("Missing break in switch") >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva >> --- >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c >> index af5b32c9..53a9f6c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c >> @@ -191,8 +191,9 @@ static void nuc900_nand_command_lp(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned int command, >> return; >> >> case NAND_CMD_READ0: >> - >> write_cmd_reg(nand, NAND_CMD_READSTART); >> + /* fall through */ > > Have you checked this is actually the right thing to do? > Actually, no. My first impression was that due to the time this code has been there, this might be a missing-break false positive. But, now that I'm double checking, it may well be that this is an actual missing-break bug. I can send a patch to fix this, but as I'm not familiar with the code, it'd be of great help if someone could help me to verify this. Thanks for the feedback. -- Gustavo