> On 2/12/23 10:07 AM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > Set xdp_features netdevice flag if lan966x nic supports xdp mode.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c | 5 +++++
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> > > index 580c91d24a52..b24e55e61dc5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> > > @@ -823,6 +823,11 @@ static int lan966x_probe_port(struct lan966x *lan966x, u32 p,
> > > port->phylink = phylink;
> > > + if (lan966x->fdma)
> > > + dev->xdp_features = NETDEV_XDP_ACT_BASIC |
> > > + NETDEV_XDP_ACT_REDIRECT |
> > > + NETDEV_XDP_ACT_NDO_XMIT;
> > > +
> > > err = register_netdev(dev);
> > > if (err) {
> > > dev_err(lan966x->dev, "register_netdev failed\n");
> >
> > Since the xdp-features series is now merged in net-next, do you think it is
> > better to target this patch to net-next?
>
> Yes, that would be better given it's a pure driver change. I moved delegate
> to netdev.
ack, thx, in this way I do not need to repost :)
Regards,
Lorenzo
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
