Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:23:32 +0200
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gust...@embeddedor.com> 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 <gust...@embeddedor.com>
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;
>               }