lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] PCI: imx: Add support for i.MX8MQ
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:30 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> [+cc Gustavo for fallthrough annotation]
>
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 11:35:45PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > Add code needed to support i.MX8MQ variant.
>
> > @@ -245,7 +253,8 @@ static void imx6_pcie_reset_phy(struct imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie)
> > {
> > u32 tmp;
> >
> > - if (imx6_pcie->variant == IMX7D)
> > + if (imx6_pcie->variant == IMX7D ||
> > + imx6_pcie->variant == IMX8MQ)
>
> This style looks like a maintenance problem: the code below is probably
> IMX6-specific, and you should test for *that* instead of adding to this
> list of things that are *not* IMX6, because that list is likely to
> continue growing. There are more occurrences below.
>

Makes sense, I'll update that patches and send a v3 out.

> > @@ -301,6 +312,7 @@ static void imx6_pcie_assert_core_reset(struct imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie)
> >
> > switch (imx6_pcie->variant) {
> > case IMX7D:
> > + case IMX8MQ: /* FALLTHROUGH */
> > reset_control_assert(imx6_pcie->pciephy_reset);
> > reset_control_assert(imx6_pcie->apps_reset);
> > break;
>
> I'm not an expert on fallthrough annotation (Gustavo, cc'd, is), but
> this looks wrong. It's the IMX7D case that falls through, not the
> IMX8MQ case.
>
> The recent annotations added by Gustavo are at the point where the
> "break" would normally be, e.g.,
>
> case IMX7D:
> /* fall through */ <--- annotation
> case IMX8MQ:
> <code>
> break;
>
> But in this case there's actually no IMX7D-specific *code* there, so I
> suspect the annotation is unnecessary. It's obvious that IMX7D and
> IMX8MQ are handled the same, so there's really no opportunity for the
> "forgotten break" mistake -Wimplicit-fallthrough is trying to find.
>
> If we *do* want this annotation, we should spell it the same as
> Gustavo has been, i.e., "fall through".
>
> Again, more occurrences below.

Yes, definitely, same mistake of mine was already caught elsewhere in
the tree https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181214144406.0dbffbc8@canb.auug.org.au/

I'll fix it in v3.

Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-15 06:23    [W:0.103 / U:7.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site