On Friday, April 13, 2018 01:12:39 PM Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Friday, April 13, 2018 12:41:18 PM Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Friday, April 13, 2018 12:30:04 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > On 13/04/2018 11:28, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > >
> > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > > >>> It is okay to return 0 because this code-path (the default one) will
> > > >>> be
> > > >>> never hit by the driver (probe makes sure of it) - the default case is
> > > >>> here is just to silence compilation errors..
> > > >>
> > > >> The init function is making sure cal_type is one or another. Can you
> > > >> fix
> > > >> it correctly by replacing the 'switch' by a 'if' instead of adding dead
> > > >> branches to please gcc?
> > > >>
> > > >> if (data->cal_type == TYPE_TWO_POINT_TRIMMING) {
> > > >> return ...;
> > > >> }
> > > >>
> > > >> return ...;
> > > >
> > > > I'm not the one that added this switch statement (it has been there
> > > > since
> > > > 2011) and I would be happy to remove it.
> > >
> > > Actually the switch statement was fine until the cleanup.
> >
> > I don't see how it was fine before as the driver has never used the default
> > case (always used TYPE_ONE_POINT_TRIMMING or TYPE_TWO_POINT_TRIMMING).
> >
> > Could you please explain this more?
> >
> > > > However could we please defer
> > > > this to v4.17 and merge the current set of Exynos thermal fixes/cleanups
> > > > (they simplify the driver a lot and make ground for future changes)?
> > >
> > > Regarding the latest comment, this can be fixed properly by 'return' (or
> > > whatever you want which does not get around of gcc warnings).
> >
> > Do you mean that you want the patch with switch statement removal?
> >
> > Is incremental fix OK or do you want something else?
>
> Danial has already posted it, I hope the fix is fine with you.
should have been:
Eduardo: Daniel has already posted it, I hope the fix is fine with you.
(& sorry for the typo)
> Also sorry for the delay with handling issue - I was on holiday last two
> days and for some reason I was under (wrong) impression that the previous
> fix has been in thermal tree (so I was quite surprised today reading this
> mail thread).
Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
