On Montag, 8. Oktober 2018 23:09:04 CEST Colin King wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> > > The IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE case is missing a break statement and in > the unlikely event that chan->address is not matched in the nested > switch statement then the code falls through to the following > IIO_CHAN_INFO_HARDWAREGAIN case. Fix this by adding the missing > break. While we are fixing this, it's probably a good idea to > add in a break statement to the IIO_CHAN_INFO_HARDWAREGAIN case > too (this is a moot point). > > Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1462408 ("Missing break in switch")
Although it is good for code clarity to add a break statement, the code can
never return anything but -EINVAL in case chan->address is not handled in
IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
-----
switch (mask) {
case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
switch (chan->address) {
case INA2XX_SHUNT_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
case INA2XX_BUS_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
case INA2XX_CURRENT:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
case INA2XX_POWER:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
}
case IIO_CHAN_INFO_HARDWAREGAIN:
switch (chan->address) {
case INA2XX_SHUNT_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_FRACTIONAL;
case INA2XX_BUS_VOLTAGE:
... return IIO_VAL_INT;
}
}
return -EINVAL;
-----
The addresses handled in INFO_HARDWAREGAIN is a subset of the ones in
INFO_SCALE.
I would prefer an early "return -EINVAL" here, as it matches better with the
other "switch (mask)" cases above.
Kind regards,
Stefan
--
Stefan Brüns / Bergstraße 21 / 52062 Aachen
home: +49 241 53809034 mobile: +49 151 50412019
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
