Hi,

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:38:52AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1462408 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> index 063e89e..d609654 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		switch (i) {
>  		case X:
>  			ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> +			/* fall through */
>  		case Y:
>  			ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> +			/* fall through */
>  		case Z:
>  			ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
>  		}

Hum, I'm not sure we are supposed to fall through here, even if it does
not hurt to do so.
I even think we can remove the switch and put that outside the for-loop,
e.g:

	ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
	ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
	ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;

	for (i = X ; i < MAX_AXIS; i++) {
		if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID && i != Y)
			state->sign[i] = -1;
		else
			state->sign[i] = 1;
	}


Best regards,
Marcus Folkesson


> -- 
> 2.7.4
>