On 08/15/2018 08:10 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1292308 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1292309 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1309546 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1357369 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1357389 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gust...@embeddedor.com>
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-lpc18xx.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-lpc18xx.c
> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-lpc18xx.c
> index 190f17e..a14bc5e 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-lpc18xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-lpc18xx.c
> @@ -844,8 +844,11 @@ static int lpc18xx_pconf_get_pin(struct pinctrl_dev
> *pctldev, unsigned param,
> *arg = (reg & LPC18XX_SCU_PIN_EHD_MASK) >>
> LPC18XX_SCU_PIN_EHD_POS;
> switch (*arg) {
> case 3: *arg += 5;
> + /* fall through */
> case 2: *arg += 5;
> + /* fall through */
> case 1: *arg += 3;
> + /* fall through */
> case 0: *arg += 4;
> }
> break;
> @@ -1060,8 +1063,11 @@ static int lpc18xx_pconf_set_pin(struct pinctrl_dev
> *pctldev, unsigned param,
>
> switch (param_val) {
> case 20: param_val -= 5;
> + /* fall through */
> case 14: param_val -= 5;
> + /* fall through */
> case 8: param_val -= 3;
> + /* fall through */
> case 4: param_val -= 4;
> break;
> default:
>
The code snippets are about a mind-blowing hyper-optimization, but I took
it as a chance to verify the correctness, and there are no issues found.
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <v...@mleia.com>
--
Best wishes,
Vladimir
