lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] PCI: imx: Add support for i.MX8MQ
From
Date
Hi,

On 12/14/18 2:30 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Gustavo for fallthrough annotation]

>
>> @@ -301,6 +312,7 @@ static void imx6_pcie_assert_core_reset(struct imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie)
>>
>> switch (imx6_pcie->variant) {
>> case IMX7D:
>> + case IMX8MQ: /* FALLTHROUGH */
>> reset_control_assert(imx6_pcie->pciephy_reset);
>> reset_control_assert(imx6_pcie->apps_reset);
>> break;
>
> I'm not an expert on fallthrough annotation (Gustavo, cc'd, is), but
> this looks wrong. It's the IMX7D case that falls through, not the
> IMX8MQ case.
>

Correct.

> The recent annotations added by Gustavo are at the point where the
> "break" would normally be, e.g.,
>
> case IMX7D:
> /* fall through */ <--- annotation
> case IMX8MQ:
> <code>
> break;
>
> But in this case there's actually no IMX7D-specific *code* there, so I
> suspect the annotation is unnecessary. It's obvious that IMX7D and
> IMX8MQ are handled the same, so there's really no opportunity for the
> "forgotten break" mistake -Wimplicit-fallthrough is trying to find.
>

Yep. That's correct. There is no need for those annotations in this patch.

> If we *do* want this annotation, we should spell it the same as
> Gustavo has been, i.e., "fall through".
>

This is a matter of style. For -Wimplicit-fallthrough, "FALLTHROUGH" is
as valid a "fall through".

Although, currently, there are 1997 instances of "fall through" vs 235
of "FALLTHROUGH" in linux-next.

Thanks
--
Gustavo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-14 21:56    [W:0.088 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site