In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in this particular case, I replaced the
"deliberate fall-through" comment with a proper "fall through"
at the bottom of the case, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1373887 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mmc/host/tifm_sd.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/tifm_sd.c b/drivers/mmc/host/tifm_sd.c
index a3d8380..b6644ce 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/tifm_sd.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/tifm_sd.c
@@ -336,7 +336,8 @@ static unsigned int tifm_sd_op_flags(struct mmc_command
*cmd)
rc |= TIFM_MMCSD_RSP_R0;
break;
case MMC_RSP_R1B:
- rc |= TIFM_MMCSD_RSP_BUSY; // deliberate fall-through
+ rc |= TIFM_MMCSD_RSP_BUSY;
+ /* fall-through */
case MMC_RSP_R1:
rc |= TIFM_MMCSD_RSP_R1;
break;
--
2.7.4
