spinlock: use spin_lock_init replace spin_initialize

[hujun260]

Summary

spinlock: use spin_lock_init replace spin_initialize
reason:
1: spin_lock_init and spin_initialize have similar functionalities.
2: spin_lock and spin_unlock should be called in matching pairs.

Impact

spinlock

Testing

ci ostest

[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 a breakdown of what's missing:

• Summary: While it states what was changed, it doesn't clearly explain why this change is necessary beyond superficial similarity. What problem does using spin_lock_init solve? Does spin_initialize have a bug? Is this a performance improvement? Is it a stylistic change for consistency? The rationale is weak. The mention of "spin_lock and spin_unlock should be called in matching pairs" is irrelevant to the stated change.
• Impact: Simply stating "spinlock" is insufficient. It needs to address all the impact points explicitly (user, build, hardware, documentation, security, compatibility). Even if the answer is "NO" for most, it needs to be stated.
• Testing: "ci ostest" is not sufficient testing information. What specific tests were run? What were the actual logs before and after the change? The provided code blocks are empty. It also needs information on the build host and target used for testing.

In short, the PR needs to be significantly more detailed and explicit to meet the NuttX requirements. It needs to provide a clear and compelling rationale for the change and demonstrate, with evidence, that the change works as intended and doesn't introduce regressions.