nuttxpr commented on PR #15644: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15644#issuecomment-2606427671
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) No, this PR description does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides a basic summary and mentions testing, it lacks crucial details. Here's a breakdown of what's missing: * **Summary:** While it states the "why," it's vague on the "what" and "how." It needs to specify *which* functional parts of the MPFS code are changed related to DDR training and *how* the patches fix the incomplete/bad training results. Mentioning specific functions, algorithms, or data structures modified would significantly improve this section. Also, any related NuttX issues should be linked. * **Impact:** The current description is far too brief. While it mentions improved reliability, it needs to address all the specific points: * **New Feature/Existing Feature Change:** Clarify this. * **Impact on User:** Likely no direct impact, but specify this explicitly. * **Impact on Build:** Are there new Kconfig options? Build dependencies? * **Impact on Hardware:** Specify the affected architectures (presumably just MPFS). Mentioning "multiple custom HW configurations" is good, but be more specific if possible (e.g., specific SoC models). * **Impact on Documentation:** Does documentation need updating to reflect these changes? If so, has this been done? * **Impact on Security:** Unlikely, but explicitly state "NO." * **Impact on Compatibility:** Are there backward compatibility concerns? State this clearly. * **Testing:** The description is insufficient. It needs to provide: * **Build Host Details:** OS, CPU architecture, compiler version used for building NuttX. * **Target Details:** Specific MPFS board/configurations used for testing. "icicle/nsh" is a start but more details are required. Mention the specific LPDDR chips used during testing. * **Testing Logs:** The PR description currently states "Tested..." but doesn't include *any* logs. It *must* include relevant logs demonstrating the issue before the patch and the improved behavior after the patch. Showing concrete examples of failing/passing DDR training is crucial for reviewers. In short, the PR needs significantly more detail to meet the NuttX requirements. Focus on providing specific information and concrete evidence of the changes and their impact. Clear, concise, and complete information will significantly improve the review process. -- 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
