From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: Checkpatch warnings on switch case fallthru Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:45:10 -0700 Message-ID: <1460231110.1800.38.camel@perches.com> References: <570928CC.6030404@metafoo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0161.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.161]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556722617BB for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 21:45:16 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <570928CC.6030404@metafoo.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Lars-Peter Clausen , Takashi Iwai , "Harvey, Ryan" Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Sat, 2016-04-09 at 18:07 +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 04/09/2016 11:06 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > = > > On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 00:23:03 +0200, > > Harvey, Ryan wrote: > > > = > > > = > > > Hello, > > > = > > > I receive a set of checkpatch warnings against my switch fallthru > > > structure in readable_registers().=A0=A0I=B9m able to eliminate these= warnings > > > with a preceding comment, but that does messy the code.=A0=A0Is there= a method > > > better than switch for accomplishing this? > > > = > > > static bool cs43130_readable_register(struct device *dev, unsigned in= t reg) > > > { > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0switch (reg) { > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_DEVID_AB ... CS43130_SYS_CLK_CTL= _1: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_PWDN_CTL: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_PLL_SET_1 ... CS43130_PLL_SET_6: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_PLL_SET_7: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_PLL_SET_8: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_PLL_SET_9: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_PLL_SET_10: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_CLKOUT_CTL: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_ASP_NUM_1 ... CS43130_ASP_FRAME_= CONF: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_HP_OUT_CTL_1: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_PCM_FILT_OPT ... CS43130_PCM_PAT= H_CTL_2: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_CLASS_H_CTL: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_HP_DETECT ... CS43130_HP_STATUS: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_HP_LOAD_1: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_HP_LOAD_STAT: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0case CS43130_INT_MASK_1 ... CS43130_INT_MASK_= 5: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0return true; > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0default: > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0return false; > > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0} > > > } > > > = > > > = > > > 140: [WARNING] Possible switch case/default not preceeded by break or > > > fallthrough comment > > > + case CS43130_PLL_SET_7: > > > 141: [WARNING] Possible switch case/default not preceeded by break or > > > fallthrough comment > > > + case CS43130_PLL_SET_8: > > > 142: [WARNING] Possible switch case/default not preceeded by break or > > > fallthrough comment > > > + case CS43130_PLL_SET_9: > > > 143: [WARNING] Possible switch case/default not preceeded by break or > > > fallthrough comment > > > + case CS43130_PLL_SET_10: > > > 144: [WARNING] Possible switch case/default not preceeded by break or > > > fallthrough comment > > > + case CS43130_CLKOUT_CTL: > > > 152: [WARNING] Possible switch case/default not preceeded by break or > > > fallthrough comment > > > + case CS43130_HP_OUT_CTL_1: > > > 154: [WARNING] Possible switch case/default not preceeded by break or > > > fallthrough comment > > > + case CS43130_CLASS_H_CTL: > > > 156: [WARNING] Possible switch case/default not preceeded by break or > > > fallthrough comment > > > + case CS43130_HP_LOAD_1: > > > 160: [WARNING] Possible switch case/default not preceeded by break or > > > fallthrough comment > > > + case CS43130_HP_LOAD_STAT: > > You may ignore the warnings.=A0=A0The purpose of checkpatch is to impro= ve > > the code readability, and what it suggests is exactly opposite. > It's a bug in checkpatch. It seems to get confused by the "...". The > best approach to solving those warnings is to create a fix for checkpatch. Can you send me the checkpatch.pl file you are using please?