[PATCH] drm/amdgpu/powerplay/polaris10_smumgr: Mark expected switch fall-through

[PATCH] drm/amdgpu/powerplay/polaris10_smumgr: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
cases where we are expecting to fall through.

Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3

This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
-Wimplicit-fallthrough.

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c
index 52abca065764..92de1bbb2e33 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c
@@ -2330,6 +2330,7 @@ static uint32_t polaris10_get_offsetof(uint32_t type, uint32_t member)
 		case DRAM_LOG_BUFF_SIZE:
 			return offsetof(SMU74_SoftRegisters, DRAM_LOG_BUFF_SIZE);
 		}
+		/* fall through */
 	case SMU_Discrete_DpmTable:
 		switch (member) {
 		case UvdBootLevel:
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu/powerplay/polaris10_smumgr: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Alex Deucher]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:50 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
>
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c
> index 52abca065764..92de1bbb2e33 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c
> @@ -2330,6 +2330,7 @@ static uint32_t polaris10_get_offsetof(uint32_t type, uint32_t member)
>                 case DRAM_LOG_BUFF_SIZE:
>                         return offsetof(SMU74_SoftRegisters, DRAM_LOG_BUFF_SIZE);
>                 }
> +               /* fall through */

These should be breaks, although I don't think we ever currently hit
this case.  I've sent out a patch to fix it and applied the rest of
the radeon and amdgpu patches.  Thanks!

Alex

>         case SMU_Discrete_DpmTable:
>                 switch (member) {
>                 case UvdBootLevel:
> --
> 2.20.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> amd-gfx mailing list
> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu/powerplay/polaris10_smumgr: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 2/18/19 4:40 PM, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:50 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
>>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
>> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c
>> index 52abca065764..92de1bbb2e33 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/smumgr/polaris10_smumgr.c
>> @@ -2330,6 +2330,7 @@ static uint32_t polaris10_get_offsetof(uint32_t type, uint32_t member)
>>                 case DRAM_LOG_BUFF_SIZE:
>>                         return offsetof(SMU74_SoftRegisters, DRAM_LOG_BUFF_SIZE);
>>                 }
>> +               /* fall through */
> 
> These should be breaks, although I don't think we ever currently hit
> this case.  I've sent out a patch to fix it and applied the rest of
> the radeon and amdgpu patches.  Thanks!
> 

Awesome!

Thanks, Alex.

--
Gustavo