On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 07:41:13PM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > Hi all! > > On Fri, 2016-07-22 at 16:58 +0100, Charles Keepax wrote: > [...] > > case IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING: > > case IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING: > > break; > > - > > - case IRQ_TYPE_NONE: > > default: > > Don't know about the kernels coding rule in that case but personally, I > use that style to explicit list all enum/#define values so that it is > obvious that none was forgotten. > For the compiler output, it shouldn't matter anyways ... >
I don't have any objection to dropping the patch as you say will generate the same output either way. Thanks, Charles
