From: Alexander Lobakin <alexander.lobakin@xxxxxxxxx>
From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2022 22:11:53 +0100
> Introduce basic XDP support to lan966x driver. Currently the driver
> supports only the actions XDP_PASS, XDP_DROP and XDP_ABORTED.
>
> Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/Makefile | 3 +-
> .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_fdma.c | 11 ++-
> .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c | 5 ++
> .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.h | 13 +++
> .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_xdp.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_xdp.c
[...]
> +bool lan966x_xdp_port_present(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> + return !!port->xdp_prog;
> +}
Why uninline such a simple check? I realize you want to keep all XDP
stuff inside in the separate file, but doesn't this one looks too
much?
> +
> +int lan966x_xdp_port_init(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> + struct lan966x *lan966x = port->lan966x;
> +
> + return xdp_rxq_info_reg(&port->xdp_rxq, port->dev, 0,
> + lan966x->napi.napi_id);
> +}
> +
> +void lan966x_xdp_port_deinit(struct lan966x_port *port)
> +{
> + if (xdp_rxq_info_is_reg(&port->xdp_rxq))
> + xdp_rxq_info_unreg(&port->xdp_rxq);
> +}
> --
> 2.38.0
Thanks,
Olek
