imx9_lpuart: use small lock in arch/arm(64)/src/imx9/imx9_lpuart.c

[hujun260]

Summary

imx9_lpuart: use small lock in arch/arm(64)/src/imx9/imx9_lpuart.c
reason:
We would like to replace the big lock with a small lock.

Impact

imx9_lpuart

Testing

ci

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

No, this PR does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides some information, it lacks crucial details.

Here's what's missing:

• Summary: The summary is too vague. It needs to explain why a smaller lock is desired (e.g., performance improvement, reduced interrupt latency). It also needs to describe how the change is implemented (e.g., replacing nxsem_wait with nxsem_trywait, using a spinlock instead of a semaphore).
• Impact: The impact section is severely lacking. It simply repeats "imx9_lpuart." It needs to address all the points listed in the requirements template. For example:
  • Is new feature added? Is existing feature changed? This is a change to an existing feature.
  • Impact on user: Potentially yes, if the change affects performance. This needs to be investigated and documented.
  • Impact on build: Likely no, but this should be explicitly stated.
  • Impact on hardware: Specific to the imx9 architecture.
  • Impact on documentation: Potentially yes, if the locking behavior is documented.
  • Impact on security/compatibility: These need to be addressed, even if the answer is no.
• Testing: "ci" is insufficient. The testing section needs to include:
  • Specific build host details (OS, compiler version, etc.).
  • Specific target details (board, configuration).
  • Actual logs demonstrating the behavior before and after the change. Simply stating "ci" doesn't provide any evidence that the change works as intended.

The PR needs significant revision to meet the NuttX requirements. It needs to be more specific and provide detailed information about the change, its impact, and the testing performed.