Re: [PATCH 3/3] mfd: cs42l43: Add support for new cs42l44 variant

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2026, Charles Keepax wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 04:14:37PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Jul 2026, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > > The cs42l44 is a cost optimised variant of cs42l43b. Add basic support
> > > for this new device.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  	switch (devid) {
> > >  	case CS42L43_DEVID_VAL:
> > > +		valid_id = (cs42l43->variant_id == CS42L43_DEVID_VAL);
> > > +		break;
> > >  	case CS42L43B_DEVID_VAL:
> > > -		if (devid != cs42l43->variant_id) {
> > > -			dev_err(cs42l43->dev,
> > > -				"Device ID (0x%06x) does not match variant ID (0x%06lx)\n",
> > > -				devid, cs42l43->variant_id);
> > > -			goto err;
> > > -		}
> > 
> > Needs a fall-through statement.
> 
> I thought they weren't typically used if the case had no content,
> the resultant code looks like:
> 
> case CS42L43B_DEVID_VAL:
> case CS42L44_DEVID_VAL:
> 	valid_id = (cs42l43->variant_id == CS42L43B_DEVID_VAL);
> 	break;
> 
> But happy to add one if we really want it?

Not particularly.  I'm happy to take your word for it.

> > > +	case CS42L44_DEVID_VAL:
> > > +		valid_id = (cs42l43->variant_id == CS42L43B_DEVID_VAL);
> > >  		break;
> > >  	default:
> > >  		dev_err(cs42l43->dev, "Unrecognised devid: 0x%06x\n", devid);
> > >  		goto err;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	if (!valid_id) {
> > 
> > How is this nor handled in the default branch?
> 
> The default case ends in goto err; so this doesn't run in that
> case.

So are there 'case's that do not populate valid_id?

-- 
Lee Jones