On 08/03/2018 11:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 11:41:39AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> On 08/03/2018 11:26 AM, valdis.kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: >>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 14:56:16 -0500, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" said: > >>> Wait, what? This looks like the sort of bug -Wimplicit-fallthrough is supposed >>> to catch. Unless for 'case WM8994_SYSCLK_OPCLK:' we actually do want to do a >>> whole bunch of snd_soc_component_update_bits() calls and then return -EINVAL >>> whether or not that case succeeded? > >> Yeah, it seems like a bug. Can someone confirm this? > >> Notice that this code has been there since 2010. > > Basically nobody ever uses OPCLK so I'd be susprised if anyone ever > noticed. > I see. I wonder what's the best approach in this case. Should that code be removed instead of 'fixed'? Thanks -- Gustavo _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
