OpenVela is a middle layer from Xiaomi that provides complete IoT support for
Android. It is built on current NuttX or Linux. NuttX is the os not
openvela.Sent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------From: Tim Hardisty <[email protected]>
Date: 20/10/25 3:49 pm (GMT-06:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Re:
NuttX and Android System Init What's the (wanted) synergy between Android and
NuttX. They're both OS' and have their place. Missing something here I think?On
20/10/2025 22:29, Gregory Nutt wrote:> OpenVela already supports and is
probably better place for Android stuff>> Get Outlook for
Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>> ________________________________> From:
Luchian Mihai <[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025
3:07:05 PM> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>> Subject: Re: NuttX
and Android System Init>> Hello all,>> This might stir the waters a bit, but I
think it needs to be said.>> I know Alan already pointed out the need for docs
in the PR comments, but> just the documentation is not enough.>> I think we
(the community) or the PMC should be more assertive regarding> these kinds of
features.> Why do we need another init system? What does this new init system
solve?> What should happen with the previous ones?> Do not get me wrong, I am
not against this new init system, I am in favour.>> While NuttX excels in posix
compliance as a single standard, a lot of other> things lack unity.> Lacking a
"default" way of doing things ends up in "hidden features", or> rather,
features> that are used and known by a set of people.>> There is also support
for fastboot and adb, so the android init system> makes sense,> but I see
nothing that explains why they are present in the first place.> Did they solve
something, some time ago? Is the NuttX project aligning with> the android
tooling?>> I would like to point out my experience as a new contributor. It
took me a> few months to get the hang of how the thing should be done,> or at
least what the majority agrees. There are board examples that differ,> but
neither are wrong also.> The system initialization is the same, I've read
documentation about `exec`> and `posix_spawn` and `task_create`,> and I am
writing docs about the flat, protected, kernel build. Yet, I still> did not
find the "NuttX way to leave" the kernel.> And here we have another init
system.>> For me this just feels more of a feature creep than a milestone,
sorry.>> It's hard to market (from my own experience) NuttX as anything other
than> "high quality code" if it takes days to> figure out the solution (out of
the existing few) for a specific problem.>> I suggest defining the expectations
about this PR, and make a separate> documentation page.> Is something that
NuttX wants to adopt going forward, that is great.> Will it help only part of
the community, that is also great.> The only thing I ask is to make that as
obvious as possible, it's tiring to> "unravel the NuttX lore" from the mailing
list.>> Cheers,> Mihai>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 19:09, Tomek CEDRO
<[email protected]> wrote:>>> well. :-(>>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 3:02 PM Alan
C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote:>>> +1>>>>>> It is better to use the right
naming.>>>>>> Fitbit implemented support for System V on NuttX and promised to
donate>> it,>>> but after Google acquired them, none contribution came from
them.>>>>>> Google also used NuttX on ARA Project, but no single code line
was>>> submitted to the NuttX mainline.>>>>>> BR,>>>>>> Alan>>>>>> On Mon, Oct
20, 2025 at 8:07 AM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote:>>>>>>> Hello world
:-)>>>>>>>> There is a very interesting and useful PR by @JianyuWang0623 that
adds>>>> support for Android System Init functionality to NuttX [1][2] with>>>>
working example on qemu [3]. This is alternative to SystemV Init and>>>>
probably other init designs. Please help in reviewing the change :-)>>>>>>>> My
only concern is naming convention here because just "system" and>>>> "system
init" is used (i.e. CONFIG_SYSTEM_INIT, CONFIG_SYSTEM_SYSTEM).>>>> This may be
a bit confusing because we do not know what init system>>>> standard is used
and we silently assume Android. My proposition is to>>>> use "Android System
Init" naming convention (i.e.>>>> CONFIG_SYSTEM_ANDROID_INIT or something like
that), so things are>>>> self-explanatory, and other init systems may be used
when necessary in>>>> future without confusion. I am not insisting here and
will follow the>>>> community choice.>>>>>>>> Please let us know what you think
:-)>>>>>>>> Thanks :-)>>>> Tomek>>>>>>>> [1]
https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3192>>>> [2]
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17215>>>> [3]
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17215>>>>>>>> -->>>> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ,
http://www.tomek.cedro.info>>>>>>>>>> -->> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ,
http://www.tomek.cedro.info>>
