Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: lpc18xx: mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:10 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
Patch applied.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: lpc18xx: mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:10 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
Patch applied.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: lpc18xx: mark expected switch fall-throughs
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
> ---
> 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
--
Best wishes,
Vladimir
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: lpc18xx: mark expected switch fall-throughs
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
> ---
> 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
--
Best wishes,
Vladimir
[PATCH] pinctrl: lpc18xx: mark expected switch fall-throughs
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
---
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:
--
2.7.4
[PATCH] pinctrl: lpc18xx: mark expected switch fall-throughs
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
---
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:
--
2.7.4
