On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 02:39:58PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
>
Makes sense. Applied.
Thanks,
Guenter
> 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 ==
