The 11/07/2022 17:13, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
Hi Olek,
>
> 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?
I was kind of hoping that the compiler will inline it for me.
But I can add it in the header file to inline it.
>
> > +
> > +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
--
/Horatiu
