On 10/10/18 08:51, Matt Ranostay wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:09 AM Colin King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE case is missing a break statement and in
>> the unlikely event that chan->address is not matched in the nested
>> switch statement then the code falls through to the following
>> IIO_CHAN_INFO_HARDWAREGAIN case. Fix this by adding the missing
>> break. While we are fixing this, it's probably a good idea to
>> add in a break statement to the IIO_CHAN_INFO_HARDWAREGAIN case
>> too (this is a moot point).
>>
>> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1462408 ("Missing break in switch")
>
> I'm not familiar with running Coverity scans myself, but is this CID
> some publicly accessible report?
> If it is an in-house scan then it should be dropped IMHO
It is publicly accessible:
https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan
Colin
>
> - Matt
>
>>
>> Fixes: ca6a2d86acae ("iio: adc: ina2xx: Allow setting Shunt Voltage PGA gain and Bus Voltage range")
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/iio/adc/ina2xx-adc.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ina2xx-adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ina2xx-adc.c
>> index d1239624187d..9bc5986780b9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ina2xx-adc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ina2xx-adc.c
>> @@ -250,6 +250,7 @@ static int ina2xx_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> *val2 = chip->shunt_resistor_uohm;
>> return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
>> }
>> + break;
>>
>> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_HARDWAREGAIN:
>> switch (chan->address) {
>> @@ -262,6 +263,7 @@ static int ina2xx_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> *val = chip->range_vbus == 32 ? 1 : 2;
>> return IIO_VAL_INT;
>> }
>> + break;
>> }
>>
>> return -EINVAL;
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
