From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: samsung: s3c: Mark expected switch fall-through Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 18:11:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4d52473e-019a-58da-c475-49bcd16c2ed4@embeddedor.com> References: <20180404010931.GA30291@embeddedor.com> <152295987121.91052.16578276622043986934@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <152295987121.91052.16578276622043986934@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd , Chanwoo Choi , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Kukjin Kim , Michael Turquette , Sylwester Nawrocki , Tomasz Figa Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org On 04/05/2018 03:24 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Gustavo A. R. Silva (2018-04-03 18:09:31) >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >> where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> Notice that in this particular case I replaced the comma wiht a dash, > > s/wiht/with/ > Thanks for this. >> which is what GCC is expecting to find when there are other comments >> in the same line in which "fall through" appears. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva >> --- >> This code was compiled with GCC 7.3.0 > > What's the GCC warning? Please include in the commit text. > drivers/clk/samsung/clk-s3c2443.c:430:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] samsung_clk_register_alias(ctx, s3c2450_aliases, ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ARRAY_SIZE(s3c2450_aliases)); ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ drivers/clk/samsung/clk-s3c2443.c:433:2: note: here case S3C2416: ^~~~ > Also what's the implicit-fallthrough level you're using? 3? Can you file > a bug so GCC can update their regex to accept a comma in addition to > whitespace characters? > Yeah, I can talk to the GCC guys about that. > And maybe we can change the level to 2 or 1 in the kernel's makefile so > we don't need to patch comments for this. > Yeah, with level 2 I don't get that warning. Thanks -- Gustavo