XSpiPs_CfgInitialize() documentation should mention zeroing out XSpiPs before passing it

Hi, I recently ran into an issue using XSpiPs_CfgInitialize() where I got undefined behavior. The documentation for the function describes it like so:

Initializes a specific XSpiPs instance such that the driver is ready to use.

With this in mind, for my use case, I stack-allocated an XSpiPs, left it in an uninitialized state (since I expected the API to properly initialize it for me), passed it in and called it a day. Things worked fine for a while, but eventually, I intermittently started receiving XST_DEVICE_IS_STARTED back from it. I was very puzzled until I saw the API's implementation:

s32 XSpiPs_CfgInitialize(XSpiPs *InstancePtr, const XSpiPs_Config *ConfigPtr,
			 u32 EffectiveAddr)
{
	s32 Status;
	Xil_AssertNonvoid(InstancePtr != NULL);
	Xil_AssertNonvoid(ConfigPtr != NULL);

	/*
	 * If the device is busy, disallow the initialize and return a status
	 * indicating it is already started. This allows the user to stop the
	 * device and re-initialize, but prevents a user from inadvertently
	 * initializing. This assumes the busy flag is cleared at startup.
	 */
	if (InstancePtr->IsBusy == TRUE) {
		Status = (s32)XST_DEVICE_IS_STARTED;
	} else {
       // start setting default values...
       ...
}

The issue was the if (InstancePtr->IsBusy == TRUE) check reading into my garbage stack memory. Now, I know it's common in C to defensively memset such types to zero them out, so perhaps it was my fault. I'm actually working with the API through Rust FFI so that habit kinda left my mind. I also realize that most users of the API would probably statically-allocate an XSpiPs so that it's initialized to zero naturally, rather than stack-allocate it. Regardless though, I think things like this should be noted in user-facing comments/docs to save them some headache.

Start from the linked XSpiPs_CfgInitialize() API documentation and locate the source declaration or comment that generates it. Document the zero-initialization requirement described in the issue, then inspect the generated API documentation to confirm the guidance is visible to users.