Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message 4CB6C3D3.7050403@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