[U-Boot] RFC: introduce malloc_cleared() ?

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Reinhard Meyer,

In message <4CB6C3D3.7050403 at emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
>
> > And why exactly does calloc() not fit?
> 
> It has two parameters... Produces more code to always supply an
> extra "1"...

Ah.

> But for malloc() in such driver init situations, another code saving
> function with error message would be more effective. I don't see any

Would it? You still need to check the return code of the allocation
function then, because you want to breeak out of the caller.

> possible way of continuing u-boot when malloc() for a relatively small
> structure already fails, and a (apparently) needed driver cannot be
> initialized.

Maybe, maybe not. As mentioned before: network access may not be so
important at all.

> I am not talking about malloc()'s for buffers or similar where continuing
> of u-boot might be possible.

Continuing U-Boot without network access is also possible. If someone
pulls the cable you also continue, or don't you?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway so I don't know why
I bother to say it, oh God, I'm so depressed. Here's another of those
self-satisfied doors. Life! Don't talk to me about life."
                                        - Marvin the Paranoid Android