On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 11:48 +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 13:07 +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > Thanks Tom,
> >
> > On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 12:33 -0700, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > From: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > A break is not needed if it is preceded by a return
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpio/gpio-bd70528.c | 3 ---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bd70528.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-
> > > bd70528.c
> > > index 45b3da8da336..931e5765fe92 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bd70528.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bd70528.c
> > > @@ -71,17 +71,14 @@ static int bd70528_gpio_set_config(struct
> > > gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
> > > GPIO_OUT_REG(offset),
> > > BD70528_GPIO_DRIVE_MASK,
> > > BD70528_GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN);
> > > - break;
> > My personal taste is also to omit these breaks but I am pretty sure I
> > saw some tooling issuing a warning about falling through the switch-
> > case back when I wrote this. Most probably checkpatch didn't like
> > that
> > back then.
>
> I did a test and removed the breaks. Then I copied the modified file to
> drivers/gpio/dummy.c
> Next I committed this dummy.c in git, ran git-format-patch -s and
> finally ran the checkpatch on this... Following was produced:
>
>
> [mvaittin@localhost linux]$ scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-gpio-add-
> dummy.patch
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "scripts/spdxcheck.py", line 6, in <module>
> from ply import lex, yacc
> ImportError: No module named ply
> WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need
> updating?
> #15:
> new file mode 100644
>
> WARNING: Possible switch case/default not preceded by break or
> fallthrough comment
> #91: FILE: drivers/gpio/dummy.c:72:
> + case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_PUSH_PULL:
>
> WARNING: Possible switch case/default not preceded by break or
> fallthrough comment
> #96: FILE: drivers/gpio/dummy.c:77:
> + case PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE:
>
> total: 0 errors, 3 warnings, 229 lines checked
>
> NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
> mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-
> inplace.
>
> 0001-gpio-add-dummy.patch has style problems, please review.
>
> NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
> them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
>
> I guess that explains the odd "fallthrough" comments you mentioned in
> another email. I guess the checkpatch should be fixed before you put
> too much effort in clean-up...
>
>
> And for peeps who have not been following - following function triggers
> the checkpatch error above:
Huh? what version of checkpatch are you using?
Send it to me please.
> static int bd70528_gpio_set_config(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int
> offset,
> unsigned long config)
> {
> struct bd70528_gpio *bdgpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
>
> switch (pinconf_to_config_param(config)) {
> case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_OPEN_DRAIN:
> return regmap_update_bits(bdgpio->chip.regmap,
> GPIO_OUT_REG(offset),
> BD70528_GPIO_DRIVE_MASK,
> BD70528_GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN);
> case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_PUSH_PULL:
> return regmap_update_bits(bdgpio->chip.regmap,
> GPIO_OUT_REG(offset),
> BD70528_GPIO_DRIVE_MASK,
> BD70528_GPIO_PUSH_PULL);
> case PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE:
> return bd70528_set_debounce(bdgpio, offset,
> pinconf_to_config_argument(
> config));
> default:
> break;
> }
> return -ENOTSUPP;
> }
>
>
> Best Regards
> Matti Vaittinen
>
