In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in this particular case, I replaced "...and fall through."
with the specific string "fall through", which is what GCC is
expecting to find thus supressing this false positive.
As Peter has observed this breaks the nice English flow, which is
less than ideal, but short of teaching GCC to read English, there
isn't a lot that we can do about it.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1462408 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
The equivalent of this is now done via macro magic when
the relevant register call is made. The actual structure
element will shortly go away.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
It is assumed that the dpot is used as a voltage divider between the
current dpot wiper setting and the maximum resistance of the dpot. The
divided voltage is provided by a vref regulator.
.------.
.-----------. | |
| vref |--' .---.
| regulator |--. | |
'-----------' | | d |
| | p |
| | o | wiper
| | t |<---------+
| | |
| '---' dac output voltage
| |
'------+------------+
Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Gustavo A. R. Silva