On 5 October 2018 at 11:54, Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that in this particular case, I replaced the
> "deliberate fall-through" comment with a proper "fall through"
> at the bottom of the case, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1373887 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Applied for next, thanks!
Kind regards
Uffe
> ---
> drivers/mmc/host/tifm_sd.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/tifm_sd.c b/drivers/mmc/host/tifm_sd.c
> index a3d8380..b6644ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/tifm_sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/tifm_sd.c
> @@ -336,7 +336,8 @@ static unsigned int tifm_sd_op_flags(struct mmc_command *cmd)
> rc |= TIFM_MMCSD_RSP_R0;
> break;
> case MMC_RSP_R1B:
> - rc |= TIFM_MMCSD_RSP_BUSY; // deliberate fall-through
> + rc |= TIFM_MMCSD_RSP_BUSY;
> + /* fall-through */
> case MMC_RSP_R1:
> rc |= TIFM_MMCSD_RSP_R1;
> break;
> --
> 2.7.4
>
