Re: [PATCH] gpio: bd70528: remove unneeded break

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 11:48 +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 13:07 +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > Thanks Tom,
> > 
> > On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 12:33 -0700, trix@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > A break is not needed if it is preceded by a return
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-bd70528.c | 3 ---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bd70528.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-
> > > bd70528.c
> > > index 45b3da8da336..931e5765fe92 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-bd70528.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-bd70528.c
> > > @@ -71,17 +71,14 @@ static int bd70528_gpio_set_config(struct
> > > gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset,
> > >  					  GPIO_OUT_REG(offset),
> > >  					  BD70528_GPIO_DRIVE_MASK,
> > >  					  BD70528_GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN);
> > > -		break;
> > My personal taste is also to omit these breaks but I am pretty sure I
> > saw some tooling issuing a warning about falling through the switch-
> > case back when I wrote this. Most probably checkpatch didn't like
> > that
> > back then.
> 
> I did a test and removed the breaks. Then I copied the modified file to
> drivers/gpio/dummy.c
> Next I committed this dummy.c in git, ran git-format-patch -s and
> finally ran the checkpatch on this... Following was produced:
> 
> 
> [mvaittin@localhost linux]$ scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-gpio-add-
> dummy.patch 
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "scripts/spdxcheck.py", line 6, in <module>
>     from ply import lex, yacc
> ImportError: No module named ply
> WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need
> updating?
> #15: 
> new file mode 100644
> 
> WARNING: Possible switch case/default not preceded by break or
> fallthrough comment
> #91: FILE: drivers/gpio/dummy.c:72:
> +	case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_PUSH_PULL:
> 
> WARNING: Possible switch case/default not preceded by break or
> fallthrough comment
> #96: FILE: drivers/gpio/dummy.c:77:
> +	case PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE:
> 
> total: 0 errors, 3 warnings, 229 lines checked
> 
> NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
>       mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-
> inplace.
> 
> 0001-gpio-add-dummy.patch has style problems, please review.
> 
> NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
>       them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
> 
> I guess that explains the odd "fallthrough" comments you mentioned in
> another email. I guess the checkpatch should be fixed before you put
> too much effort in clean-up...
> 
> 
> And for peeps who have not been following - following function triggers
> the checkpatch error above:

Huh?  what version of checkpatch are you using?
Send it to me please.

> static int bd70528_gpio_set_config(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int
> offset,
> 				   unsigned long config)
> {
> 	struct bd70528_gpio *bdgpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
> 
> 	switch (pinconf_to_config_param(config)) {
> 	case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_OPEN_DRAIN:
> 		return regmap_update_bits(bdgpio->chip.regmap,
> 					  GPIO_OUT_REG(offset),
> 					  BD70528_GPIO_DRIVE_MASK,
> 					  BD70528_GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN);
> 	case PIN_CONFIG_DRIVE_PUSH_PULL:
> 		return regmap_update_bits(bdgpio->chip.regmap,
> 					  GPIO_OUT_REG(offset),
> 					  BD70528_GPIO_DRIVE_MASK,
> 					  BD70528_GPIO_PUSH_PULL);
> 	case PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_DEBOUNCE:
> 		return bd70528_set_debounce(bdgpio, offset,
> 					    pinconf_to_config_argument(
> config));
> 	default:
> 		break;
> 	}
> 	return -ENOTSUPP;
> }
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 	Matti Vaittinen
>