Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH V1] ASoC: fsl_esai: replace fall-through with break

Hi Shengjiu,

On 4/8/19 9:54 PM, S.j. Wang wrote:

Hi Gustavo

quoted

On 4/8/19 4:28 AM, S.j. Wang wrote:

quoted

case ESAI_HCKT_EXTAL and case ESAI_HCKR_EXTAL should be

independent of

quoted

each other, so replace fall-through with break.

If this is correct, then you should use the following "Fixes" tag instead,
which is the one that introduced the bug:

Fixes: 43d24e76b698 ("ASoC: fsl_esai: Add ESAI CPU DAI driver")

quoted

Fixes: 16bbeb2b43c3 ("ASoC: fsl_esai: Mark expected switch
fall-through")

        ^^^^
because this didn't change any functionality.

Ok, this will be updated.

quoted

quoted

Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang <redacted>
---
 sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c index

c7410bbfd2af..bad0dfed6b68 100644

--- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c
+++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c

@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ static int fsl_esai_set_dai_sysclk(struct

snd_soc_dai *dai, int clk_id,

quoted

              break;
      case ESAI_HCKT_EXTAL:
              ecr |= ESAI_ECR_ETI;

Also, you should use a simple assignment operator "=" instead of "|=" in
both cases.

The result is same for "=" and "|=", because there is "ecr = 0" in beginning of
This function. 

Following that same logic, then why not use "+=" instead?

The point is: is "|=" or any other assignment operator other than "=" necessary?
The answer in this case is: no, it is not.  So, go for the simple one and avoid
any unnecessary confusion.

Also, there is no need for versioning a patch for it's first revision.  If you
receive feedback on a patch and are asked to update it, then you do need to
version the patches that you re-send.

Thanks
--
Gustavo

quoted

quoted

-             /* fall through */
+             break;
      case ESAI_HCKR_EXTAL:
              ecr |= esai_priv->synchronous ? ESAI_ECR_ETI : ESAI_ECR_ERI;
              break;

Thanks
--
Gustavo