nuttxpr commented on PR #14701: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14701#issuecomment-2464618190
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) This PR appears to mostly meet the NuttX requirements, but has some gaps that need addressing before it's ready. Here's a breakdown: **Strengths:** * **Clear Summary:** The summary explains the "why," "what," and "how" of the change effectively. The link to the LVGL code showing the usage is helpful. * **Impact Acknowledged:** The impact section correctly identifies the potential memory issue and seeks feedback on how to handle it. This proactive approach is good. * **Testing Information Provided:** The testing section specifies the hardware and software environment used for verification. The instructions for configuring the board are clear. Referencing how LVGL detects the changes is also good. **Weaknesses:** * **Missing Issue References:** The summary should link to a related NuttX or NuttX Apps issue if one exists. If not, consider creating one to track the feature request/bug this PR addresses. * **Impact Needs More Detail:** While the memory impact is mentioned, other impacts need to be addressed more thoroughly. Even if the answer is "NO", a brief explanation is helpful for reviewers. For example: * **Impact on user:** Even if LVGL adapts automatically, will *other* users of the framebuffer device need to change their code? * **Impact on build:** Does adding double buffering change any build dependencies or configurations? * **Impact on hardware:** Is this change specific to the ESP32-S3, or could it be applied to other LCD drivers? * **Impact on documentation:** Does this change require updating any documentation (e.g., the framebuffer driver documentation, board configuration documentation)? If so, has the documentation been updated in the PR? * **Impact on security:** While unlikely, it's good practice to consider security implications of any change. Explicitly stating "NO" with a brief justification is sufficient. * **Impact on compatibility:** Does this change break compatibility with any existing applications or configurations? * **Missing Testing Logs:** The testing section *describes* the testing but doesn't include any actual logs. Include relevant log output before and after the change to demonstrate the functionality and the absence of regressions. Demonstrate both single buffering and double buffering behavior. Show what happens if the system has insufficient memory. * **Kconfig Decision:** The PR raises the question about a Kconfig option but doesn't propose a solution. Suggest a concrete Kconfig option (name, description, default value) in the PR description. This allows reviewers to discuss the specific proposal. **Recommendations:** 1. **Create a related issue:** File an issue in the appropriate repository (NuttX or NuttX-Apps) and link it in the PR summary. 2. **Complete the Impact section:** Address all impact points with specific details, even if the answer is "NO." 3. **Provide testing logs:** Include actual log output demonstrating the behavior before and after the change, covering both positive and negative cases (sufficient and insufficient memory). 4. **Propose a Kconfig option:** Suggest a specific Kconfig option (name, description, default value) to control double buffering. Justify your choice (e.g., why enabled by default or disabled by default). By addressing these points, the PR will be much stronger and easier for reviewers to evaluate. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
