>> @@ -6551,6 +6549,11 @@ static void wlcore_nvs_cb(const struct firmware *fw, void *context) >> out: >> release_firmware(fw); >> complete_all(&wl->nvs_loading_complete); >> + return; >> + >> +power_off: > > Name this "out_power_off" to match the other labels. Do you expect a second approach for this patch series then? >> + wl1271_power_off(wl); >> + goto out_free_nvs; > > Why not put this in front of the out_free_nvs label? It seems that I can not really follow this suggestion at the moment. > It looks weird here. Which detail do you not like? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
