| Message ID | 20200831113958.GB514373@mwanda (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | hwmon: replace impossible fallthroughs with breaks | expand |
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 02:39:58PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > It's impossible to reach these fall through statements because all > the possible values are handled. In that situation it's cleaner to > use a break statement instead of a fall through statement. > Makes sense. Applied. Thanks, Guenter > Fixes: c947e51cf803 ("hwmon: (adt7462) Mark expected switch fall-throughs") > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> > --- > drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c b/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c > index e75bbd87ad09..634a44591c7f 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c > @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static const char *voltage_label(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) > case 3: > return "+1.5V"; > } > - fallthrough; > + break; > case 2: > if (!(data->pin_cfg[1] & ADT7462_PIN22_INPUT)) > return "+12V3"; > @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static const char *voltage_label(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) > case 3: > return "+1.5"; > } > - fallthrough; > + break; > case 11: > if (data->pin_cfg[3] >> ADT7462_PIN28_SHIFT == > ADT7462_PIN28_VOLT && > @@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ static int voltage_multiplier(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) > case 3: > return 7800; > } > - fallthrough; > + break; > case 2: > if (!(data->pin_cfg[1] & ADT7462_PIN22_INPUT)) > return 62500; > @@ -589,7 +589,7 @@ static int voltage_multiplier(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) > case 3: > return 7800; > } > - fallthrough; > + break; > case 11: > case 12: > if (data->pin_cfg[3] >> ADT7462_PIN28_SHIFT ==
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c b/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c index e75bbd87ad09..634a44591c7f 100644 --- a/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c +++ b/drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static const char *voltage_label(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) case 3: return "+1.5V"; } - fallthrough; + break; case 2: if (!(data->pin_cfg[1] & ADT7462_PIN22_INPUT)) return "+12V3"; @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static const char *voltage_label(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) case 3: return "+1.5"; } - fallthrough; + break; case 11: if (data->pin_cfg[3] >> ADT7462_PIN28_SHIFT == ADT7462_PIN28_VOLT && @@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ static int voltage_multiplier(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) case 3: return 7800; } - fallthrough; + break; case 2: if (!(data->pin_cfg[1] & ADT7462_PIN22_INPUT)) return 62500; @@ -589,7 +589,7 @@ static int voltage_multiplier(struct adt7462_data *data, int which) case 3: return 7800; } - fallthrough; + break; case 11: case 12: if (data->pin_cfg[3] >> ADT7462_PIN28_SHIFT ==
It's impossible to reach these fall through statements because all the possible values are handled. In that situation it's cleaner to use a break statement instead of a fall through statement. Fixes: c947e51cf803 ("hwmon: (adt7462) Mark expected switch fall-throughs") Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> --- drivers/hwmon/adt7462.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)