On 08/03/2018 11:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 11:41:39AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
On 08/03/2018 11:26 AM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 14:56:16 -0500, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" said:
Wait, what? This looks like the sort of bug -Wimplicit-fallthrough is supposed to catch. Unless for 'case WM8994_SYSCLK_OPCLK:' we actually do want to do a whole bunch of snd_soc_component_update_bits() calls and then return -EINVAL whether or not that case succeeded?
Yeah, it seems like a bug. Can someone confirm this?
Notice that this code has been there since 2010.
Basically nobody ever uses OPCLK so I'd be susprised if anyone ever noticed.
I see. I wonder what's the best approach in this case. Should that code be removed instead of 'fixed'?
Thanks -- Gustavo