Hello.
On 05-05-2011 15:51, Adrian Hunter wrote:
From: Sudhir Bera <[email protected]>
In fact the no_off check here will not be hit because
'omap_hsmmc_disabled_to_sleep()' won't schedule a
deeper disable in the no_off case.
Signed-off-by: Sudhir Bera <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c | 7 +++----
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
index bab25ff..bd52849 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
@@ -1852,14 +1852,13 @@ static int omap_hsmmc_sleep_to_off(struct
omap_hsmmc_host *host)
return 0;
if (mmc_slot(host).no_off)
- return 0;
+ goto out;
if (!((host->mmc->caps& MMC_CAP_NONREMOVABLE) ||
mmc_slot(host).card_detect ||
(mmc_slot(host).get_cover_state &&
mmc_slot(host).get_cover_state(host->dev, host->slot_id)))) {
- mmc_release_host(host->mmc);
- return 0;
+ goto out;
}
This has become a single statement, so {} shpould be removed, no?
checkpatch.pl probably warns here?..
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
