{bp-16085} arch/esp32s3: The MISO, MOSI and C/S are optional

[jerpelea]

Summary

The MISO or MOSI pin is optional.
The C/S pin is unnecessary when ESP32S3_SPI_UDCS is enabled.

Impact

RELEASE

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 why:

• Insufficient Summary: "The MISO or MOSI pin is optional. The C/S pin is unnecessary when ESP32S3_SPI_UDCS is enabled." This only describes what changed, not why. What problem does this solve? Is this a bug fix, a new feature, or an optimization? Which driver is affected? How exactly does making these pins optional and unnecessary work within the driver code? Links to related issues are missing.

• Incomplete Impact Assessment: "RELEASE" is not a valid answer. Each impact category (user, build, hardware, documentation, security, compatibility) requires a "YES" or "NO" answer, followed by a description if the answer is "YES." For example, even if the answer to "Impact on user" is "NO," the PR submitter should explicitly state "NO." Marking "RELEASE" suggests this change affects a release, but doesn't explain how.

• Inadequate Testing Information: "CI" is insufficient. While Continuous Integration testing is valuable, the PR should still include specific details about local testing. The template requests information about the build host and target(s), along with "before" and "after" testing logs. Simply stating "CI" doesn't provide enough evidence that the changes were thoroughly tested. It leaves reviewers guessing about the testing environment and the results.

The PR author needs to provide more specific information for each section to meet the NuttX requirements.