On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:31:00AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1470102 ("Missing break in switch")
Any other advantage besides coverity?
Can't we address it by marking as "Intentional" on the tool?
I'm afraid there will be so many more places to add fallthrough
marks....
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> index 132fe63..6a40a77 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> @@ -2566,6 +2566,7 @@ int icl_calc_dp_combo_pll_link(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> switch (index) {
> default:
> MISSING_CASE(index);
> + /* fall through */
> case 0:
> link_clock = 540000;
> break;
> --
> 2.7.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
