[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <09712ee94610998c26658dad5c12720299ff957d.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:50:11 +0000
From: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To: "andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC: linux-power <linux-power@...rohmeurope.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"bgolaszewski@...libre.com" <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"trix@...hat.com" <trix@...hat.com>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: bd70528: remove unneeded break
On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 14:46 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:26 PM Vaittinen, Matti
> <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 12:33 -0700, trix@...hat.com wrote:
> > > - break;
> > My personal taste is also to omit these breaks but I am pretty sure
> > I
> > saw some tooling issuing a warning about falling through the
> > switch-
> > case back when I wrote this. Most probably checkpatch didn't like
> > that
> > back then. Anyways - if you have no warnings from any of the tools
> > -
> > this indeed looks better (to me) without the break :)
>
> JFYI: it's a clang which actually *is* complaining for an extra
> break.
>
Oh. I just replied before seeing this. So actually, checkpatch
complains about missing break and clang about existing break. I'm
getting much more nagging at work than at home!
Best Regards
Matti
Powered by blists - more mailing lists