Hi guys, I was about to submit this patch again, then I realized I had sent it before.
So, this is a friendly ping. Thanks -- Gustavo On 10/8/18 3:30 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:23:32 +0200 > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >> where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch") >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]> > Hi, > > I'll be honest I'm lost on what the intent of this code actually is... > > Gwendal - why do we have a loop with this odd switch statement > in it. Superficially I think we might as well drop the switch > and pull those assignments out of the loop. However, perhaps > I'm missing something! > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > >> --- >> drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c >> b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c >> index 063e89e..d609654 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c >> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c >> @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct >> platform_device *pdev) >> switch (i) { >> case X: >> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y; >> + /* fall through */ >> case Y: >> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X; >> + /* fall through */ >> case Z: >> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z; >> } >
