Hi Marcus,
On 8/15/18 12:27 PM, Marcus Folkesson wrote:
> 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.
Yeah. You're right. It doesn't hurt but is actually redundant. I think
the original intention was to break instead of falling through.
> 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;
> }
>
I like this, but the code clearly depends on MAX_AXIS. So, if MAX_AXIS
will be always 3, then the change you suggest is just fine. Otherwise,
it seems that adding a break to each case is the right way to go.
What do you think?
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo
