On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 15:39 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 07/25/2018 05:39 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > > where we are expecting to fall through. > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c: In function > > ‘mfld_setup’: > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c:93:14: warning: this > > statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c > > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c > > index 86e1bd0b82e9..b4997be62f03 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c > > @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ static int mfld_setup(struct pci_dev *pdev, > > struct dw_pci_controller *c) > > case 0x0817: > > c->bus_cfg &= ~DW_IC_CON_SPEED_MASK; > > c->bus_cfg |= DW_IC_CON_SPEED_STD; > > + /* fall through */ > > case 0x0818: > > case 0x0819: > > c->bus_num = pdev->device - 0x817 + 3; > > Should this be From: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>? > > I see my inbox has exactly same patch from him July 3rd and Acked-by > you. Thanks for pointing this out! I based my series on linux-next which presumably includes i2c-next, I dunno why that patch is not there, that's why I crafted same myself (just totally forgot about previous one). Wolfram, can we sort things out somehow? I suppose you will have either conflict here, or "patch already applied" kind of message. In any case, please take the older one from Gustavo. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy
