2012/8/16 Arend van Spriel [off-list ref]:

On 08/16/2012 07:39 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:

quoted

2012/8/16 Florian Fainelli[off-list ref]:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+void __init bcm47xx_gpio_init(void)
+{
+     int err;
+
+     switch (bcm47xx_bus_type) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_BCM47XX_SSB
+     case BCM47XX_BUS_TYPE_SSB:
+             bcm47xx_gpio_count = ssb_gpio_count(&bcm47xx_bus.ssb);
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_BCM47XX_BCMA
+     case BCM47XX_BUS_TYPE_BCMA:
+             bcm47xx_gpio_count =
bcma_gpio_count(&bcm47xx_bus.bcma.bus);
+#endif
+     }

quoted

Is this exclusive? Cannot we have both SSB and BCMA on the same device?

This applies to SoC only, so I believe it's fine. We don't have SoCs
based on BCMA and SSB at the same time.

It is indeed more than unlikely for a chip to have two silicon
interconnects, which is what SSB and BCMA are. However, it does look
suspicious from a code reading perspective. So I general I stick to the rule
that each case must have a break and fall-thru are clearly commented.

Ahh, I though question is related to the enum used for bustype. I
definitely vote for using "break"


-- 
Rafał