On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Fabio Estevam <feste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki
> <jagannadha.sutradharudu-t...@xilinx.com> wrote:
>> Squash the malloc()+memset() combo in favor of calloc().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jaga...@xilinx.com>
>> Cc: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c
>> index 1f1bb36..abdb0ef 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_ops.c
>> @@ -381,8 +381,11 @@ int spi_flash_cmd_read_ops(struct spi_flash *flash, u32
>> offset,
>> }
>>
>> cmdsz = SPI_FLASH_CMD_LEN + flash->dummy_byte;
>> - cmd = malloc(cmdsz);
>> - memset(cmd, 0, cmdsz);
>> + cmd = calloc(1, cmdsz);
>> + if (!cmd) {
>> + debug("SF: Failed to allocate cmd\n");
>> + return ret;
>
> Shouldn't you return -ENOMEM instead?
Yes - we can but anyway ret is -1 by default.
and sf code doesn't use -ve macros' as of now.
--
Thanks,
Jagan.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
