[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 a breakdown of what's missing:

• Summary:

  • Lacks a clear explanation of why the format change is necessary. Is it for readability? Consistency? Correctness? Just saying "fix the comment" isn't sufficient. What was wrong with the comment?
  • Needs to specify which functional part of the code is being changed. "arm64" is too broad. Is it in a specific driver? A core architecture file?
  • Needs to explain how the change works. "change some format" is vague. Provide specifics about the formatting changes.

• Impact:

  • Simply stating "arm64" doesn't explain the impact. The Impact section requires YES/NO answers for each category. Even if the answer is NO, it should still explicitly state NO. If the answer is YES, a description is required. For example:
    • Impact on user: NO
    • Impact on build: NO
    • Impact on hardware: YES (affects arm64 architecture, potentially impacting performance or code size - needs details)
    • ...etc...

• Testing:

  • "ci ostest" is insufficient. While CI testing is important, it should be supplemented with specific local testing details. What build host was used? What specific arm64 target board and configuration?
  • The requirement specifically asks for "Testing logs before change" and "Testing logs after change." These are missing entirely. Simply saying the change "works as intended" is not verifiable. Show evidence! Even if the change is purely cosmetic, provide some form of output demonstrating the change.

In short, the PR needs to be much more descriptive and provide concrete evidence of testing and impact assessment. Each section of the NuttX requirements needs to be addressed thoroughly.