From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752077AbcHHIJh (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 8 Aug 2016 04:09:37 -0400
Received: from mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com ([67.231.152.168]:45511 "EHLO
	mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751158AbcHHIJg (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 8 Aug 2016 04:09:36 -0400
Authentication-Results: ppops.net;
	spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 09:09:24 +0100
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@sysprog.at>
CC: <lee.jones@linaro.org>, <patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: arizona: Remove pointless switch case
Message-ID: <20160808080924.GA21682@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1469203133-21491-1-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <1469295673.14838.4.camel@sysprog.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1469295673.14838.4.camel@sysprog.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0
 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011
 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0
 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1604210000 definitions=main-1608080098
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 07:41:13PM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> Hi all!
> 
> On Fri, 2016-07-22 at 16:58 +0100, Charles Keepax wrote:
> [...]
> >  		case IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING:
> >  		case IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING:
> >  			break;
> > -
> > -		case IRQ_TYPE_NONE:
> >  		default:
> 
> Don't know about the kernels coding rule in that case but personally, I
> use that style to explicit list all enum/#define values so that it is
> obvious that none was forgotten.
> For the compiler output, it shouldn't matter anyways ...
> 

I don't have any objection to dropping the patch as you say will
generate the same output either way.

Thanks,
Charles