lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] iio: adc: ina2xx: fix missing break statement
Date
On Montag, 8. Oktober 2018 23:09:04 CEST Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>
> The IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE case is missing a break statement and in
> the unlikely event that chan->address is not matched in the nested
> switch statement then the code falls through to the following
> IIO_CHAN_INFO_HARDWAREGAIN case. Fix this by adding the missing
> break. While we are fixing this, it's probably a good idea to
> add in a break statement to the IIO_CHAN_INFO_HARDWAREGAIN case
> too (this is a moot point).
>
> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1462408 ("Missing break in switch")

Although it is good for code clarity to add a break statement, the code can
never return anything but -EINVAL in case chan->address is not handled in
IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:

-----
switch (mask) {
case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
switch (chan->address) {
case INA2XX_SHUNT_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;

case INA2XX_BUS_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;

case INA2XX_CURRENT:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;

case INA2XX_POWER:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
}

case IIO_CHAN_INFO_HARDWAREGAIN:
switch (chan->address) {
case INA2XX_SHUNT_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;

case INA2XX_BUS_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_INT;
}
}
return -EINVAL;
-----

The addresses handled in INFO_HARDWAREGAIN is a subset of the ones in
INFO_SCALE.

I would prefer an early "return -EINVAL" here, as it matches better with the
other "switch (mask)" cases above.

Kind regards,

Stefan

--
Stefan Brüns / Bergstraße 21 / 52062 Aachen
home: +49 241 53809034 mobile: +49 151 50412019[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-10 12:53    [W:0.028 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site