On 07/12/2021 20:00, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 17:32, David Virag <virag.david003@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> pll1417x is used in Exynos7885 SoC for top-level integer PLLs.
>> It is similar enough to pll0822x that practically the same code can
>> handle both. The difference that's to be noted is that when defining a
>> pl1417x PLL, the "con" parameter of the PLL macro should be set to the
>> CON1 register instead of CON3, like this:
>>
>> PLL(pll_1417x, CLK_FOUT_SHARED0_PLL, "fout_shared0_pll", "oscclk",
>> PLL_LOCKTIME_PLL_SHARED0, PLL_CON0_PLL_SHARED0,
>> NULL),
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: David Virag <virag.david003@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Nothing
>>
>> Changes in v3:
>> - Nothing
>>
>> Changes in v4:
>> - Added R-b tag by Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>
>> drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c | 1 +
>> drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
>> index 83d1b03647db..70cdc87f714e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
>> @@ -1476,6 +1476,7 @@ static void __init _samsung_clk_register_pll(struct samsung_clk_provider *ctx,
>> else
>> init.ops = &samsung_pll35xx_clk_ops;
>> break;
>> + case pll_1417x:
>
> I wonder why this switch have a bunch of fall through cases, but none
> marked with "fallthrough;" line, and both checkpatch and "make" turn
> blind eye on that? Anyway, I guess it's ok as is, just an observation.
>
I think the fallthrough is needed for non-obvious cases where one case
has some code and misses a break. Something like:
switch () {
case a:
case b:
case c:
foobar();
}
is obvious/explicit and does not need fallthrough.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
