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:
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
