use small lock to protect register about l2cc in arch "arm"

[wangzhi-art]

Summary

Use small lock to protect register about l2cc, involving the following files:

arch/arm/src/armv7-a/arm_l2cc_pl310.c
arch/arm/src/armv7-r/arm_l2cc_pl310.c
arch/arm/src/armv8-r/arm_l2cc_pl310.c

Impact

arch/arm/src/armv7-a/arm_l2cc_pl310.c
arch/arm/src/armv7-r/arm_l2cc_pl310.c
arch/arm/src/armv8-r/arm_l2cc_pl310.c

Testing

CI

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

No, this PR does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides a summary of the changes and lists impacted files, it lacks crucial information. Here's what's missing:

• Summary: Needs to explain why the lock is necessary. What problem does it solve? What was the previous behavior, and why was it incorrect/inefficient/unsafe? How does the small lock mechanism work specifically? Are there any related NuttX issues?
• Impact: The listed files are the changed files, but the impact section needs to describe the effects of those changes. Specifically address all the points (user impact, build impact, hardware impact, documentation, security, compatibility). For example, does this change improve performance? Does it fix a bug? Does it introduce any new limitations? Just saying "NO" or "YES" isn't sufficient; explain the impact.
• Testing: "CI" is not enough. Provide actual test logs before and after the change demonstrating the issue being fixed or the new functionality working. What specific tests were run? What platforms were they run on (Build Host and Target details)? What were the results? The logs should clearly show a difference in behavior. If the change is related to performance, provide benchmarks.

Essentially, the PR needs to provide enough information for a reviewer to understand the context, assess the impact, and verify the effectiveness of the changes. The current version is too vague and lacks evidence to support the claim that it "works as intended."