* [PATCH] iio: accel: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2018-08-15 16:38 Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-08-15 17:27 ` Marcus Folkesson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2018-08-15 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler
Cc: linux-iio, linux-kernel, Gustavo A. R. Silva
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;
}
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2018-08-15 16:38 [PATCH] iio: accel: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2018-08-15 17:27 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-08-15 17:50 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marcus Folkesson @ 2018-08-15 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler, linux-iio, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1511 bytes --]
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
>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2018-08-15 17:27 ` Marcus Folkesson
@ 2018-08-15 17:50 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-08-18 15:34 ` Marcus Folkesson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2018-08-15 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcus Folkesson
Cc: Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler, linux-iio, linux-kernel
Hi Marcus,
On 8/15/18 12:27 PM, Marcus Folkesson wrote:
> 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.
Yeah. You're right. It doesn't hurt but is actually redundant. I think
the original intention was to break instead of falling through.
> 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;
> }
>
I like this, but the code clearly depends on MAX_AXIS. So, if MAX_AXIS
will be always 3, then the change you suggest is just fine. Otherwise,
it seems that adding a break to each case is the right way to go.
What do you think?
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2018-08-15 17:50 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2018-08-18 15:34 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-08-19 16:20 ` Jonathan Cameron
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marcus Folkesson @ 2018-08-18 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler, linux-iio, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2903 bytes --]
Hi Gutavo,
Sorry for the delay.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:50:10PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>
> On 8/15/18 12:27 PM, Marcus Folkesson wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yeah. You're right. It doesn't hurt but is actually redundant. I think
> the original intention was to break instead of falling through.
>
> > 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;
> > }
> >
>
> I like this, but the code clearly depends on MAX_AXIS. So, if MAX_AXIS
> will be always 3, then the change you suggest is just fine. Otherwise,
> it seems that adding a break to each case is the right way to go.
>
> What do you think?
Well, I guess it is a matter of taste after all.
I don't think the number of axis will change, but just put the break in
place is good enough.
Anyway, If we choose to not use the switch, I think we should remove the
for-loop as well, eg:
ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID) {
state->sign[X] = -1;
state->sign[Y] = 1;
state->sign[Z] = -1;
} else {
state->sign[X] = 1;
state->sign[Y] = 1;
state->sign[Z] = 1;
}
But someone else may like to give their point of view on this change.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
> --
> Gustavo
Best regards
Marcus Folkesson
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2018-08-18 15:34 ` Marcus Folkesson
@ 2018-08-19 16:20 ` Jonathan Cameron
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2018-08-19 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcus Folkesson
Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva, Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler, linux-iio, linux-kernel
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 17:34:40 +0200
Marcus Folkesson <marcus.folkesson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Gutavo,
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:50:10PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > Hi Marcus,
> >
> > On 8/15/18 12:27 PM, Marcus Folkesson wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yeah. You're right. It doesn't hurt but is actually redundant. I think
> > the original intention was to break instead of falling through.
> >
> > > 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;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > I like this, but the code clearly depends on MAX_AXIS. So, if MAX_AXIS
> > will be always 3, then the change you suggest is just fine. Otherwise,
> > it seems that adding a break to each case is the right way to go.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Well, I guess it is a matter of taste after all.
> I don't think the number of axis will change, but just put the break in
> place is good enough.
>
> Anyway, If we choose to not use the switch, I think we should remove the
> for-loop as well, eg:
>
> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
>
> if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID) {
> state->sign[X] = -1;
> state->sign[Y] = 1;
> state->sign[Z] = -1;
> } else {
> state->sign[X] = 1;
> state->sign[Y] = 1;
> state->sign[Z] = 1;
> }
>
> But someone else may like to give their point of view on this change.
Looks like the right tidy up to me. The original code was 'novel' :)
Jonathan
>
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> > --
> > Gustavo
>
> Best regards
> Marcus Folkesson
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-08-19 16:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-08-15 16:38 [PATCH] iio: accel: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-08-15 17:27 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-08-15 17:50 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-08-18 15:34 ` Marcus Folkesson
2018-08-19 16:20 ` Jonathan Cameron
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).