Hi guys,
I was about to submit this patch again, then I realized I had
sent it before.
So, this is a friendly ping.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
On 10/8/18 3:30 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:23:32 +0200
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi,
>
> I'll be honest I'm lost on what the intent of this code actually is...
>
> Gwendal - why do we have a loop with this odd switch statement
> in it. Superficially I think we might as well drop the switch
> and pull those assignments out of the loop. However, perhaps
> I'm missing something!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
>> ---
>> 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;
>> }
>
