iio: dpot-dac: fix code comment in dpot_dac_read_raw()
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 iio: dpot-dac: fix code comment in dpot_dac_read_raw()
After the replacement of the /* fall through */ comment with the fallthrough pseudo-keyword macro, the natural reading of a code comment was broken.
Fix the natural reading of such a comment and make it intelligible.
--- drivers/iio/dac/dpot-dac.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
drivers/iio/dac/dpot-dac.c +2 -1
@@ -74,10 +74,11 @@ static int dpot_dac_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,case IIO_VAL_INT :/* * Convert integer scale to fractional scale by -* setting the denominator (val2) to one, and... +* setting the denominator (val2) to one... */ *val2 =1 ; ret =IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL ; +/* ...and fall through. Say it again for GCC. */ fallthrough;case IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL : *val *=regulator_get_voltage (dac->vref) /1000 ;
Signature · 1 line
2.27.0
Hi!
Quoted 8 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
After the replacement of the /* fall through */ comment with the fallthrough pseudo-keyword macro, the natural reading of a code comment was broken.
Fix the natural reading of such a comment and make it intelligible.
Reported-by Peter Rosin <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Excellent, thanks for the quick turnaround!
And just to be explicit, this fix is for 5.9.
Cheers,
Peter
Hi,
Quoted 7 lines · Peter Rosin
Hi!
Quoted 4 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
After the replacement of the /* fall through */ comment with the fallthrough pseudo-keyword macro, the natural reading of a code comment was broken.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Fix the natural reading of such a comment and make it intelligible.
Reported-by Peter Rosin <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>Excellent, thanks for the quick turnaround!
No problem. :)
Quoted 4 lines
And just to be explicit, this fix is for 5.9.
Acked-by Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
If you don't mind I can add this to my tree for 5.9-rc4 and send it directly to Linus.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
Quoted 7 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
Quoted 4 lines
And just to be explicit, this fix is for 5.9.
Acked-by Peter Rosin <[email protected]>If you don't mind I can add this to my tree for 5.9-rc4 and send it directly to Linus.
Fine by me, Jonathan might think differently but I can't find a reason why. Just about nothing is happening in that file and the risk for conflicts is negligible.
Cheers,
Peter
Quoted 6 lines · Peter Rosin
Quoted 5 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
Quoted 4 lines
And just to be explicit, this fix is for 5.9.
Acked-by Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
If you don't mind I can add this to my tree for 5.9-rc4 and send it directly to Linus.
Fine by me, Jonathan might think differently but I can't find a reason why. Just about nothing is happening in that file and the risk for conflicts is negligible.
OK. In the meantime, I have added this to my -next tree and queued it up for 5.9-rc3.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
Jonathan Cameron
maintainerQuoted 10 lines · On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:25:29 -0500 "Gustavo A. R. Silva"…
Quoted 9 lines · Peter Rosin
Quoted 7 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
Quoted 4 lines
And just to be explicit, this fix is for 5.9.
Acked-by Peter Rosin <[email protected]>If you don't mind I can add this to my tree for 5.9-rc4 and send it directly to Linus.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Fine by me, Jonathan might think differently but I can't find a reason why. Just about nothing is happening in that file and the risk for conflicts is negligible.
OK. In the meantime, I have added this to my -next tree and queued it up for 5.9-rc3.
Absolutely fine by me.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Quoted 4 lines
Thanks
--
Gustavo