Hi,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:38:52AM -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: 1462408 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> index 063e89e..d609654 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> switch (i) {
> case X:
> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> + /* fall through */
> case Y:
> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> + /* fall through */
> case Z:
> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
> }
Hum, I'm not sure we are supposed to fall through here, even if it does
not hurt to do so.
I even think we can remove the switch and put that outside the for-loop,
e.g:
ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
for (i = X ; i < MAX_AXIS; i++) {
if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID && i != Y)
state->sign[i] = -1;
else
state->sign[i] = 1;
}
Best regards,
Marcus Folkesson
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
