Hi Gutavo,
Sorry for the delay.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:50:10PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 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?
Well, I guess it is a matter of taste after all.
I don't think the number of axis will change, but just put the break in
place is good enough.
Anyway, If we choose to not use the switch, I think we should remove the
for-loop as well, eg:
ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID) {
state->sign[X] = -1;
state->sign[Y] = 1;
state->sign[Z] = -1;
} else {
state->sign[X] = 1;
state->sign[Y] = 1;
state->sign[Z] = 1;
}
But someone else may like to give their point of view on this change.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
> --
> Gustavo
Best regards
Marcus Folkesson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
