2012/8/16 Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 08/16/2012 07:39 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> >> 2012/8/16 Florian Fainelli<florian@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> >>>> >>+void __init bcm47xx_gpio_init(void) >>>> >>+{ >>>> >>+ int err; >>>> >>+ >>>> >>+ switch (bcm47xx_bus_type) { >>>> >>+#ifdef CONFIG_BCM47XX_SSB >>>> >>+ case BCM47XX_BUS_TYPE_SSB: >>>> >>+ bcm47xx_gpio_count = ssb_gpio_count(&bcm47xx_bus.ssb); >>>> >>+#endif >>>> >>+#ifdef CONFIG_BCM47XX_BCMA >>>> >>+ case BCM47XX_BUS_TYPE_BCMA: >>>> >>+ bcm47xx_gpio_count = >>>> >> bcma_gpio_count(&bcm47xx_bus.bcma.bus); >>>> >>+#endif >>>> >>+ } >>> >>> > >>> >Is this exclusive? Cannot we have both SSB and BCMA on the same device? >> >> This applies to SoC only, so I believe it's fine. We don't have SoCs >> based on BCMA and SSB at the same time. > > > It is indeed more than unlikely for a chip to have two silicon > interconnects, which is what SSB and BCMA are. However, it does look > suspicious from a code reading perspective. So I general I stick to the rule > that each case must have a break and fall-thru are clearly commented. Ahh, I though question is related to the enum used for bustype. I definitely vote for using "break" -- Rafał