[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <85d918a5-6a14-ead0-4d0e-d63b5e43ad81@embeddedor.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 11:41:39 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: valdis.kletnieks@...edu
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
patches@...nsource.cirrus.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] ASoC: wm8994: Mark expected switch fall-through
On 08/03/2018 11:26 AM, valdis.kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 14:56:16 -0500, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" said:
>
>> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c
>> index 7fdfdf3..62f8c5b 100644
>> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c
>> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c
>> @@ -2432,6 +2432,7 @@ static int wm8994_set_dai_sysclk(struct snd_soc_dai *dai,
>> snd_soc_component_update_bits(component, WM8994_POWER_MANAGEMENT_2,
>> WM8994_OPCLK_ENA, 0);
>> }
>> + /* fall through */
>>
>> default:
>> return -EINVAL;
>
> Wait, what? This looks like the sort of bug -Wimplicit-fallthrough is supposed
> to catch. Unless for 'case WM8994_SYSCLK_OPCLK:' we actually do want to do a
> whole bunch of snd_soc_component_update_bits() calls and then return -EINVAL
> whether or not that case succeeded?
>
>
Yeah, it seems like a bug. Can someone confirm this?
Notice that this code has been there since 2010.
Thanks Valdis for pointing this out.
--
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists