From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:42097 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727604AbeHOUTz (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2018 16:19:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:27:00 +0200 From: Marcus Folkesson To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Cc: Jonathan Cameron , Hartmut Knaack , Lars-Peter Clausen , Peter Meerwald-Stadler , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs Message-ID: <20180815172700.GA29039@gmail.com> References: <20180815163852.GA4910@embeddedor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v" In-Reply-To: <20180815163852.GA4910@embeddedor.com> Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:38:52AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. >=20 > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1462408 ("Missing break in switch") > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva > --- > drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >=20 > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel= /cros_ec_accel_legacy.c > index 063e89e..d609654 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c > @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platfor= m_device *pdev) > switch (i) { > case X: > ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index =3D Y; > + /* fall through */ > case Y: > ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index =3D X; > + /* fall through */ > case Z: > ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index =3D Z; > } Hum, I'm not sure we are supposed to fall through here, even if it does not hurt to do so. I even think we can remove the switch and put that outside the for-loop, e.g: ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index =3D Y; ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index =3D X; ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index =3D Z; for (i =3D X ; i < MAX_AXIS; i++) { if (state->sensor_num =3D=3D MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID && i !=3D Y) state->sign[i] =3D -1; else state->sign[i] =3D 1; } Best regards, Marcus Folkesson > --=20 > 2.7.4 >=20 --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEBVGi6LZstU1kwSxliIBOb1ldUjIFAlt0YmAACgkQiIBOb1ld UjLeDw/+I5HcY7PZ8db/lQ3/nhoeswqUMgvdFBiatI0hczVsWU6XBDRRcKnXSF8v ZAQd7otLNWIKQZWqPEIyeQmv2Nzf4Qm1vxlssrylTDOSQd/cx84XenrKqOyYk8WI GpABy6WsNBVqnPPWdhpfdu0P9D/Tum3QCzsvNSJCNhZ5xl2bhoCCGxqUvz5s/9ZF Um+FoXCJBS6j5/2u9127IAa7ftB2y5OIcfok9pancrfLJ8dqRCMTh+hDg2kaWYy3 BN0Fg7yYadX0OOa5AZBeA0I4FcfIrCa42yI22jiYPGMOUhzlz2G1IVcjDyDwxfXr O9vgf2G7Gwm6Ht1dECvvYrRUPr1Mfx7KPaDket5HoFsOozZnN+YKFSk9z7yfxSfq VeLNXB1AA+tjsDmv3C/0PCNYWloghwTFwUSKEIYF26y9Ac4r1EYeC3ddbQGGdxzd qAdG3Paw53vUh2wL7CBkKrG3bHL1UHjvHF3mWsAMWgOY9J85VMaO8tmQ1bFiXD+j Zf7vWQ3OnkuY3GyrZgVGd8iGD5ZTMIBfEPw//keZ98ssqhVihU0C1qCPt7lZfbQg QmBm+kNnDwixI76imjSo/O1wMUliEwwFJDnc4I1HvZsr183ZgCdlQiTV7IM8sMAT v5n7fxl6ybxl0qix4dmlCBvvXzpyw2H3MPjZwdf5BYPLqXFM+F4= =NCRc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v--