Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Oct 2018 21:30:04 +0100 | From | Jonathan Cameron <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs |
| |
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:23:32 +0200 "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch") > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> Hi,
I'll be honest I'm lost on what the intent of this code actually is...
Gwendal - why do we have a loop with this odd switch statement in it. Superficially I think we might as well drop the switch and pull those assignments out of the loop. However, perhaps I'm missing something!
Thanks,
Jonathan
> --- > drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > 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 platform_device *pdev) > switch (i) { > case X: > ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y; > + /* fall through */ > case Y: > ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X; > + /* fall through */ > case Z: > ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z; > }
| |