On Montag, 8. Oktober 2018 23:09:04 CEST Colin King 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")
Although it is good for code clarity to add a break statement, the code can
never return anything but -EINVAL in case chan->address is not handled in
IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
-----
switch (mask) {
case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
switch (chan->address) {
case INA2XX_SHUNT_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
case INA2XX_BUS_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
case INA2XX_CURRENT:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
case INA2XX_POWER:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
}
case IIO_CHAN_INFO_HARDWAREGAIN:
switch (chan->address) {
case INA2XX_SHUNT_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
case INA2XX_BUS_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_INT;
}
}
return -EINVAL;
-----
The addresses handled in INFO_HARDWAREGAIN is a subset of the ones in
INFO_SCALE.
I would prefer an early "return -EINVAL" here, as it matches better with the
other "switch (mask)" cases above.
Kind regards,
Stefan
--
Stefan Brüns / Bergstraße 21 / 52062 Aachen
home: +49 241 53809034 mobile: +49 151 50412019Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
