Messages in this thread | | | From | "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mtd: nuc900_nand: mark expected switch fall-through | Date | Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:09:37 -0500 |
| |
Hi Miquel,
On 07/18/2018 03:03 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Gustavo, > > Prefix should be "mtd: rawnand: nuc900:" >
Oh OK. I'll fix it.
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote on Tue, 10 Jul > 2018 08:29:02 -0500: > >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >> where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1471717 ("Missing break in switch") >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> >> --- >> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c >> index af5b32c9..53a9f6c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c >> @@ -191,8 +191,9 @@ static void nuc900_nand_command_lp(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned int command, >> return; >> >> case NAND_CMD_READ0: >> - >> write_cmd_reg(nand, NAND_CMD_READSTART); >> + /* fall through */ > > Have you checked this is actually the right thing to do? >
Actually, no. My first impression was that due to the time this code has been there, this might be a missing-break false positive. But, now that I'm double checking, it may well be that this is an actual missing-break bug.
I can send a patch to fix this, but as I'm not familiar with the code, it'd be of great help if someone could help me to verify this.
Thanks for the feedback. -- Gustavo
| |