[PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement

[PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement

[Colin King]

From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>

Currently the LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1 case does not have a
break statement, causing it to fall through to a dev_err message.
Fix this by adding in the missing break statement.

Addresses-Coverity: ("Missing break in switch")
Fixes: 7ee63bd74750 ("regulator: lp87565: Add 4-phase lp87561 regulator support")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
---
 drivers/regulator/lp87565-regulator.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/lp87565-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/lp87565-regulator.c
index 993c11702083..5d067f7c2116 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/lp87565-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/lp87565-regulator.c
@@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ static int lp87565_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	case LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1:
 		min_idx = LP87565_BUCK_3210;
 		max_idx = LP87565_BUCK_3210;
+		break;
 	default:
 		dev_err(lp87565->dev, "Invalid lp config %d\n",
 			lp87565->dev_type);
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement

[Keerthy]

On 27/06/19 6:46 PM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> 
> Currently the LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1 case does not have a
> break statement, causing it to fall through to a dev_err message.
> Fix this by adding in the missing break statement.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Missing break in switch")
> Fixes: 7ee63bd74750 ("regulator: lp87565: Add 4-phase lp87561 regulator support")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> ---
>   drivers/regulator/lp87565-regulator.c | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/lp87565-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/lp87565-regulator.c
> index 993c11702083..5d067f7c2116 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/lp87565-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/lp87565-regulator.c
> @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ static int lp87565_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	case LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1:
>   		min_idx = LP87565_BUCK_3210;
>   		max_idx = LP87565_BUCK_3210;
> +		break;

Thanks Colin.

Reviewed-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>

>   	default:
>   		dev_err(lp87565->dev, "Invalid lp config %d\n",
>   			lp87565->dev_type);
> 

Re: [PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 377 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:16:39PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> 
> Currently the LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1 case does not have a
> break statement, causing it to fall through to a dev_err message.
> Fix this by adding in the missing break statement.

This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement

[Colin Ian King]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 584 bytes --]

On 28/06/2019 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:16:39PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>
>> Currently the LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1 case does not have a
>> break statement, causing it to fall through to a dev_err message.
>> Fix this by adding in the missing break statement.
> 
> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
> 
So it applies cleanly against linux-next, I think the original code
landed in mfd/for-mfd-next - c.f. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/28/550

Colin



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement

[Lee Jones]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, Colin Ian King wrote:

> On 28/06/2019 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:16:39PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> >>
> >> Currently the LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1 case does not have a
> >> break statement, causing it to fall through to a dev_err message.
> >> Fix this by adding in the missing break statement.
> > 
> > This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
> > 
> So it applies cleanly against linux-next, I think the original code
> landed in mfd/for-mfd-next - c.f. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/28/550

Applied, thanks Colin.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement

[Colin Ian King]

On 02/07/2019 11:44, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, Colin Ian King wrote:
> 
>> On 28/06/2019 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:16:39PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>
>>>> Currently the LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1 case does not have a
>>>> break statement, causing it to fall through to a dev_err message.
>>>> Fix this by adding in the missing break statement.
>>>
>>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
>>>
>> So it applies cleanly against linux-next, I think the original code
>> landed in mfd/for-mfd-next - c.f. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/28/550
> 
> Applied, thanks Colin.
> 
I'm confused, who is the official maintainer of the regulator patches
nowadays?

Colin

Re: [PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019, Colin Ian King wrote:

> On 02/07/2019 11:44, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > 
> >> On 28/06/2019 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:16:39PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> >>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Currently the LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1 case does not have a
> >>>> break statement, causing it to fall through to a dev_err message.
> >>>> Fix this by adding in the missing break statement.
> >>>
> >>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
> >>>
> >> So it applies cleanly against linux-next, I think the original code
> >> landed in mfd/for-mfd-next - c.f. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/28/550
> > 
> > Applied, thanks Colin.
> > 
> I'm confused, who is the official maintainer of the regulator patches
> nowadays?

Mark.  But the patch you're fixing is currently in the MFD tree.

I sent him an updated pull-request.

Don't worry mate, you're in good hands. ;)

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement

[Keerthy]

On 02/07/19 5:01 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2019, Colin Ian King wrote:
> 
>> On 02/07/2019 11:44, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/06/2019 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:16:39PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently the LP87565_DEVICE_TYPE_LP87561_Q1 case does not have a
>>>>>> break statement, causing it to fall through to a dev_err message.
>>>>>> Fix this by adding in the missing break statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
>>>>>
>>>> So it applies cleanly against linux-next, I think the original code
>>>> landed in mfd/for-mfd-next - c.f. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/28/550
>>>
>>> Applied, thanks Colin.
>>>
>> I'm confused, who is the official maintainer of the regulator patches
>> nowadays?
> 
> Mark.  But the patch you're fixing is currently in the MFD tree.
> 
> I sent him an updated pull-request.

Thanks Lee!

> 
> Don't worry mate, you're in good hands. ;)
> 

Re: [PATCH][next] regulator: lp87565: fix missing break in switch statement

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 684 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 12:12:10PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 02/07/2019 11:44, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019, Colin Ian King wrote:

> >> So it applies cleanly against linux-next, I think the original code
> >> landed in mfd/for-mfd-next - c.f. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/28/550

> > Applied, thanks Colin.

> I'm confused, who is the official maintainer of the regulator patches
> nowadays?

Me and Liam but since this patch only applies against Lee's tree he's
applied it there (I didn't think it was worth me picking up the entire
cross tree merge branch Lee prepared for this one fix, if Lee hadn't
picked it up it'd have waited till after the merge window).

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]