On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 11:41:39AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > On 08/03/2018 11:26 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 14:56:16 -0500, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" said:
> > Wait, what? This looks like the sort of bug -Wimplicit-fallthrough is > > supposed > > to catch. Unless for 'case WM8994_SYSCLK_OPCLK:' we actually do want to do > > a > > whole bunch of snd_soc_component_update_bits() calls and then return -EINVAL > > whether or not that case succeeded? > Yeah, it seems like a bug. Can someone confirm this? > Notice that this code has been there since 2010. Basically nobody ever uses OPCLK so I'd be susprised if anyone ever noticed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
