|SUCCESS| [v1, 2/2] doc: update recommended matching versions for cpfl and idpf

[dpdklab at iol.unh.edu]

Test-Label: ai-code-review
Test-Status: SUCCESS
https://dpdk.org/patch/163802

_AI Code Review_

=== Patch Review: series.patch (via Claude) ===
Review date: 2026-05-08

git commit: Add MMG device IDs and update documentation for Intel idpf driver

Author: Christopher Pau <christopher.pau at intel.com>

Subject: [PATCH v1 1/2] net/idpf/base: add MMG device IDs

This patch series adds new MMG device IDs for the idpf driver and updates
the documentation for recommended matching versions.

> diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/idpf/base/idpf_devids.h b/drivers/net/intel/idpf/base/idpf_devids.h
> index 1ae99fcee1..8b10ef9e32 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/intel/idpf/base/idpf_devids.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/intel/idpf/base/idpf_devids.h
> @@ -10,7 +10,10 @@
>  
>  /* Device IDs */
>  #define IDPF_DEV_ID_PF			0x1452
> +#define IDPF_DEV_ID_PF1			0x11DF
> +#define IDPF_DEV_ID_CPF1		0x11E0
>  #define IDPF_DEV_ID_VF			0x145C
> +#define IDPF_DEV_ID_VF1			0x0DE2
>  #define IDPF_DEV_ID_VF_SIOV		0x0DD5

This adds new device IDs, but where are these IDs actually used? Are there
corresponding changes to device ID tables in the driver (like pci_id_idpf_map
or similar structures) that need to reference these new defines? Without
registration of these IDs in the PCI device tables, these defines would be
unused.

Also, the naming convention appears inconsistent. The existing IDs use
suffixes like _PF, _VF, _VF_SIOV, but the new ones use _PF1, _CPF1, _VF1.
What does the "1" suffix signify? What does CPF stand for (versus PF)?
Should there be a comment explaining the difference between these device ID
variants?

> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/cpfl.rst b/doc/guides/nics/cpfl.rst
> index bc42c524ea..da884f5e3b 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/nics/cpfl.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/cpfl.rst
> @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ Here is the suggested matching list which has been tested and verified.
>     +------------+------------------+
>     |    25.07   |       2.0        |
>     +------------+------------------+
> +   |    26.07   |       2.2        |
> +   +------------+------------------+
>  
>  
>  Configuration
> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/idpf.rst b/doc/guides/nics/idpf.rst
> index c7c76190c8..a6f611c09b 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/nics/idpf.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/idpf.rst
> @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ Here is the suggested matching list which has been tested and verified.
>     +------------+---------------+------------------+
>     |    25.07   |    0.0.772    |       2.0        |
>     +------------+---------------+------------------+
> +   |    26.07   |    0.0.780    |       2.2        |
> +   +------------+---------------+------------------+

The documentation updates add future version 26.07, but the current date is
2026-05-08. Does this version numbering follow DPDK's YY.MM format? If so,
26.07 would be July 2026, which is in the future. Is it appropriate to add
documentation for a release that hasn't occurred yet? Should this wait until
closer to or after the 26.07 release?