On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 5:58 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helg...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 03:09:16PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > Convert all fallthrough comments to say "fall through", as well as
> > modify their placement to the point where the "break" would normally
> > be.
> >
> > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelg...@google.com>
> > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.este...@nxp.com>
> > Cc: Chris Healy <cphe...@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Lucas Stach <l.st...@pengutronix.de>
> > Cc: Leonard Crestez <leonard.cres...@nxp.com>
> > Cc: "A.s. Dong" <aisheng.d...@nxp.com>
> > Cc: Richard Zhu <hongxing....@nxp.com>
> > Cc: linux-...@nxp.com
> > Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
> > Suggested-by: Bjorn Helgaas <helg...@kernel.org>
>
> I didn't make it very clear, but my suggestion was really to remove
> the annotation completely; see below.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smir...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c
> > b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c
> > index 59658577e81d..a0510e185d44 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-imx6.c
> > @@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ static void imx6_pcie_assert_core_reset(struct
> > imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie)
> >
> > switch (imx6_pcie->variant) {
> > case IMX7D:
> > - case IMX8MQ: /* FALLTHROUGH */
> > + /* fall through */
> > + case IMX8MQ:
> > reset_control_assert(imx6_pcie->pciephy_reset);
> > reset_control_assert(imx6_pcie->apps_reset);
> > break;
>
> IMO this use of "fall through" is superfluous and unusual in the Linux
> source.
>
> A "fall through" comment would be useful if the IMX7D case had
> executable code but no "break". Then the comment shows that the
> intent was to execute *both* the IMX7D code and the IMX8MQ code and
> the lack of a "break" was intentional.
>
> In this case, the intent is to treat IMX7D and IMX8MQ the same, and
> there's no executable code specifically for the IMX7D. I think it's
> easiest to read that when the list of identical cases is all together
> without the comment in the middle, i.e., as
>
> > case IMX7D:
> > case IMX8MQ:
> > reset_control_assert(imx6_pcie->pciephy_reset);
>
> rather than this:
>
> > case IMX7D:
> > /* fall through */
> > case IMX8MQ:
> > reset_control_assert(imx6_pcie->pciephy_reset);
OK, understood, will remove in next version.
Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov
