Merge tag 'spi-nor/for-5.5' into mtd/next

SPI NOR core changes:
- introduce 'struct spi_nor_controller_ops',
- clean the Register Operations methods,
- use dev_dbg insted of dev_err for low level info,
- fix retlen handling in sst_write(),
- fix silent truncations in spi_nor_read and spi_nor_read_raw(),
- fix the clearing of QE bit on lock()/unlock(),
- rework the disabling of the block write protection,
- rework the Quad Enable methods,
- make sure nor->spimem and nor->controller_ops are mutually exclusive,
- set default Quad Enable method for ISSI flashes,
- add support for few flashes.

SPI NOR controller drivers changes:
- intel-spi:
	- support chips without software sequencer,
	- add support for Intel Cannon Lake and Intel Comet Lake-H flashes.

2 files changed, 24 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
index f4a2198187f9..ada573b7d703 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ instead of ``double-indenting`` the ``case`` labels.  E.g.:
 	case 'K':
 	case 'k':
 		mem <<= 10;
-		/* fall through */
+		fallthrough;
 	default:
 		break;
 	}
diff --git a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
index 053b24a6dd38..179f2a5625a0 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
@@ -122,14 +122,27 @@ memory adjacent to the stack (when built without `CONFIG_VMAP_STACK=y`)
 
 Implicit switch case fall-through
 ---------------------------------
-The C language allows switch cases to "fall through" when
-a "break" statement is missing at the end of a case. This,
-however, introduces ambiguity in the code, as it's not always
-clear if the missing break is intentional or a bug. As there
-have been a long list of flaws `due to missing "break" statements
+The C language allows switch cases to "fall-through" when a "break" statement
+is missing at the end of a case. This, however, introduces ambiguity in the
+code, as it's not always clear if the missing break is intentional or a bug.
+
+As there have been a long list of flaws `due to missing "break" statements
 <https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/484.html>`_, we no longer allow
-"implicit fall-through". In order to identify an intentional fall-through
-case, we have adopted the marking used by static analyzers: a comment
-saying `/* Fall through */`. Once the C++17 `__attribute__((fallthrough))`
-is more widely handled by C compilers, static analyzers, and IDEs, we can
-switch to using that instead.
+"implicit fall-through".
+
+In order to identify intentional fall-through cases, we have adopted a
+pseudo-keyword macro 'fallthrough' which expands to gcc's extension
+__attribute__((__fallthrough__)).  `Statement Attributes
+<https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Attributes.html>`_
+
+When the C17/C18  [[fallthrough]] syntax is more commonly supported by
+C compilers, static analyzers, and IDEs, we can switch to using that syntax
+for the macro pseudo-keyword.
+
+All switch/case blocks must end in one of:
+
+	break;
+	fallthrough;
+	continue;
+	goto <label>;
+	return [expression];