|SUCCESS| [v2, 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/164187

_AI Code Review_

=== Patch Review: series.patch (via Claude) ===
Review date: 2026-05-20

Commit: [Unable to determine git sha - not provided in patch]
Author: Christopher Pau <christopher.pau at intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] net/idpf/base: add MMG device IDs

This patch series adds MMG device IDs to 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

Are these new device IDs (IDPF_DEV_ID_PF1 and IDPF_DEV_ID_CPF1) actually
used anywhere in the driver code, or do they need to be added to device
tables in the PMD probe function? The patch only adds the definitions but
does not show them being registered for use.

>  #define IDPF_DEV_ID_VF			0x145C
> +#define IDPF_DEV_ID_VF1			0x0DE2

Similarly, does IDPF_DEV_ID_VF1 need to be added to the VF device ID
table for the driver to recognize and bind to devices with this ID?

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/cpfl.rst b/doc/guides/nics/cpfl.rst
> index bc42c524ea..377397e621 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/nics/cpfl.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/cpfl.rst
> @@ -28,19 +28,14 @@ It is highly recommended to upgrade the MEV-ts release
>  to avoid compatibility issues with the cpfl PMD.
>  Here is the suggested matching list which has been tested and verified.
>  
> -   +------------+------------------+
> -   |     DPDK   |  MEV-ts release  |
> -   +============+==================+
> -   |    23.07   |      0.9.1       |
> -   +------------+------------------+
> -   |    23.11   |       1.0        |
> -   +------------+------------------+
> -   |    24.07   |       1.4        |
> -   +------------+------------------+
> -   |    24.11   |       1.6        |
> -   +------------+------------------+
> -   |    25.07   |       2.0        |
> -   +------------+------------------+
> +=====  ==============
> +DPDK   MEV-ts release
> +=====  ==============
> +26.07       2.2
> +25.11       2.0
> +24.11       1.6
> +23.11       1.0
> +=====  ==============

Does the documentation reflect the current date (2026-05-20) correctly? The
patch shows DPDK version 26.07 which would be a future release from the
patch submission date. Should this entry be present if the release has not
occurred yet?

Also, note that the table drops the 24.07 and 23.07 entries. Is this
intentional, and are these older versions no longer supported?

> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/idpf.rst b/doc/guides/nics/idpf.rst
> index c7c76190c8..cc89d22cf0 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/nics/idpf.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/idpf.rst
> @@ -26,17 +26,14 @@ It is highly recommended to upgrade the idpf kernel driver, MEV-ts release
>  to avoid compatibility issues with the idpf PMD.
>  Here is the suggested matching list which has been tested and verified.
>  
> -   +------------+---------------+------------------+
> -   |    DPDK    | Kernel Driver |  MEV-ts release  |
> -   +============+===============+==================+
> -   |    23.07   |    0.0.710    |      0.9.1       |
> -   +------------+---------------+------------------+
> -   |    23.11   |    0.0.720    |       1.0        |
> -   +------------+---------------+------------------+
> -   |    24.11   |    0.0.754    |       1.6        |
> -   +------------+---------------+------------------+
> -   |    25.07   |    0.0.772    |       2.0        |
> -   +------------+---------------+------------------+
> +=====  =============  ==============
> +DPDK   Kernel Driver  MEV-ts release
> +=====  =============  ==============
> +26.07     0.0.780           2.2
> +25.11     0.0.772           2.0
> +24.11     0.0.754           1.6
> +23.11     0.0.720           1.0
> +=====  =============  ==============

Same question applies here regarding the 26.07 entry. Does this
documentation update need to be submitted after the 26.07 release is
finalized?

Additionally, the 23.07 and 24.07 entries were removed. Should older
supported versions be retained in the documentation for users on legacy
releases?