It's impossible to reach these fall through statements because all the possible values are handled. In that situation it's cleaner to use a break statement instead of a fall through statement. Fixes: c947e51cf803 ("hwmon: (adt7462) Mark expected switch fall-throughs") Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c b/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c index e75bbd87ad09..634a44591c7f 100644 --- a/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c +++ b/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static const char *voltage_label(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) case 3: return "+1.5V"; } - fallthrough; + break; case 2: if (!(data->pin_cfg[1] & ADT7462_PIN22_INPUT)) return "+12V3"; @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static const char *voltage_label(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) case 3: return "+1.5"; } - fallthrough; + break; case 11: if (data->pin_cfg[3] >> ADT7462_PIN28_SHIFT == ADT7462_PIN28_VOLT && @@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ static int voltage_multiplier(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) case 3: return 7800; } - fallthrough; + break; case 2: if (!(data->pin_cfg[1] & ADT7462_PIN22_INPUT)) return 62500; @@ -589,7 +589,7 @@ static int voltage_multiplier(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) case 3: return 7800; } - fallthrough; + break; case 11: case 12: if (data->pin_cfg[3] >> ADT7462_PIN28_SHIFT == -- 2.28.0