lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] platform/x86: acer-wmi: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:49:34AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> This patch fixes the following warnings:
>
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c: In function ‘set_u32’:
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c:1378:33: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> if (cap == ACER_CAP_WIRELESS ||
> ^
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c:1386:3: note: here
> case ACER_WMID:
> ^~~~
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c:1393:12: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> else if (wmi_has_guid(WMID_GUID2))
> ^
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c:1395:3: note: here
> default:
> ^~~~~~~
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c: In function ‘get_u32’:
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c:1340:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> if (cap == ACER_CAP_MAILLED) {
> ^
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c:1344:2: note: here
> case ACER_WMID:
> ^~~~
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c: In function ‘WMID_get_u32’:
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c:1013:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> if (quirks->mailled == 1) {
> ^
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c:1018:2: note: here
> default:
> ^~~~~~~
>
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> index fcfeadd1301f..bd87f9037f95 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> @@ -1015,6 +1015,7 @@ static acpi_status WMID_get_u32(u32 *value, u32 cap)
> *value = tmp & 0x1;
> return 0;
> }
> + /* fall through */
> default:
> return AE_ERROR;
> }
> @@ -1341,6 +1342,7 @@ static acpi_status get_u32(u32 *value, u32 cap)
> status = AMW0_get_u32(value, cap);
> break;
> }
> + /* fall through */

This doesn't strike me as obviously the right thing to do here. If the interface
type is AMW0_V2, why is it the right thing to do to use WMID_get_u32 if the cap
isn't ACER_CAP_MAILLED?

> case ACER_WMID:
> status = WMID_get_u32(value, cap);
> break;
> @@ -1383,6 +1385,7 @@ static acpi_status set_u32(u32 value, u32 cap)
>
> return AMW0_set_u32(value, cap);
> }
> + /* fall through */

Similarly here.

Are we documenting intended behavior, or covering up a bug.

> case ACER_WMID:
> return WMID_set_u32(value, cap);

--
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-09 01:07    [W:0.059 / U:13.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site