It's impossible to reach these fall through statements because all
the possible values are handled. In that situation it's cleaner to
use a break statement instead of a fall through statement.
Fixes: c947e51cf803 ("hwmon: (adt7462) Mark expected switch fall-throughs")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c b/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c
index e75bbd87ad09..634a44591c7f 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c
@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static const char *voltage_label(struct adt7462_data *data, int which)
case 3:
return "+1.5V";
}
- fallthrough;
+ break;
case 2:
if (!(data->pin_cfg[1] & ADT7462_PIN22_INPUT))
return "+12V3";
@@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static const char *voltage_label(struct adt7462_data *data, int which)
case 3:
return "+1.5";
}
- fallthrough;
+ break;
case 11:
if (data->pin_cfg[3] >> ADT7462_PIN28_SHIFT ==
ADT7462_PIN28_VOLT &&
@@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ static int voltage_multiplier(struct adt7462_data *data, int which)
case 3:
return 7800;
}
- fallthrough;
+ break;
case 2:
if (!(data->pin_cfg[1] & ADT7462_PIN22_INPUT))
return 62500;
@@ -589,7 +589,7 @@ static int voltage_multiplier(struct adt7462_data *data, int which)
case 3:
return 7800;
}
- fallthrough;
+ break;
case 11:
case 12:
if (data->pin_cfg[3] >> ADT7462_PIN28_SHIFT ==
--
2.28.0
