Fix several -Wno-implicit-fallthrough warnings
GCC is picky about the comment being where the break should go.
Change-Id: I05db2fb34025fefe2c6ddd1274c8e45b7cc5a4b6
Signed-off-by: Richard Hughes <richard@hughsie.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/30406
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Nico Huber <nico.h@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>
Reviewed-by: Angel Pons <th3fanbus@gmail.com>
diff --git a/spi25_statusreg.c b/spi25_statusreg.c
index a5fb3b8..4cf7023 100644
--- a/spi25_statusreg.c
+++ b/spi25_statusreg.c
@@ -269,19 +269,22 @@
static void spi_prettyprint_status_register_bp(uint8_t status, int bp)
{
switch (bp) {
- /* Fall through. */
case 4:
msg_cdbg("Chip status register: Block Protect 4 (BP4) is %sset\n",
(status & (1 << 6)) ? "" : "not ");
+ /* Fall through. */
case 3:
msg_cdbg("Chip status register: Block Protect 3 (BP3) is %sset\n",
(status & (1 << 5)) ? "" : "not ");
+ /* Fall through. */
case 2:
msg_cdbg("Chip status register: Block Protect 2 (BP2) is %sset\n",
(status & (1 << 4)) ? "" : "not ");
+ /* Fall through. */
case 1:
msg_cdbg("Chip status register: Block Protect 1 (BP1) is %sset\n",
(status & (1 << 3)) ? "" : "not ");
+ /* Fall through. */
case 0:
msg_cdbg("Chip status register: Block Protect 0 (BP0) is %sset\n",
(status & (1 << 2)) ? "" : "not ");