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
