From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:39:00 +1000
Subject: [U-Boot] Early malloc() summary
In-Reply-To: <201208150156.32843.marex@denx.de>
References: <CALButCL9btmPEW3Uiv9=tU4Yk7fdTUruzpCcVqMLynpzWv6Pug@mail.gmail.com>
	<201208141437.29415.marex@denx.de>
	<CALButCLZtr7VF0F7-FYebYNxGnwZuosLF2v0Vcokia3dEjQ4-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<201208150156.32843.marex@denx.de>
Message-ID: <502CDBD4.7090508@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Marek,

On 08/15/2012 09:56 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Graeme Russ,
> 
> [...]
> 
>>
>> Third path is dm_malloc() - Although ugly, it has a few nicities...
> 
> Thinking about dm_malloc() ... if it's entirely different, the semantics can be 
> adjusted too ... say to "int dm_malloc(void **ptr, size_t size);":
> 
> - return int: error code
> - **ptr: pointer to allocated memory, that way we can possibly implement pointer 
> tracking (of course that'd need more work, might be a debug feature)
> - size: size of allocated area

I think we should keep the semantics as close as possible to malloc(). If
there is an error, return NULL. For starters, if we do later go with a
common malloc() which gets wrapped, changing the code will be a lot easier.

Regards,

Graeme