One thing is that at least with the fork approach, we could avoid a total re-write to fit the NuttX idioms and instead just have an ability to get our patches in quicker. It should also then be easy enough to bring in patches from the main ESP HAL to our fork; at least compared to maintaining an entirely custom version of the HAL.
Matteo On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 2:17 PM Jorge Guzman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > First, I'd like to understand how we ended up in this situation of using > third-party packages from Espressif and Raspberry Pi. > > I believe this was discussed and decided by a vote some time ago. Now, we > need to understand what went wrong and try to fix it. > > Espressif is one of the few companies with dedicated teams providing > support for NuttX, but I believe they are overloaded with other > responsibilities. > > At this point, the idea of creating a fork doesn't seem like a bad one to > me. > > Em qua., 5 de ago. de 2026 às 15:11, Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> > escreveu: > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 5:52 PM Felipe Moura Oliveira > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Do you really think that vendor-released firmware is guaranteed to be > > > functional and well-tested? > > > Consider Windows versus Linux. Windows is developed by a private > company > > > with its own protocols, testing processes, and so on, yet I do not find > > it > > > to be more stable than Linux. > > > > Try running Linux binary on a different distribution or after one year > > and see what "stable" means.. usually it means "stable API" :-) > > > > > Look for esp p4, when it was released it was like a beta version. > > > > Yeah, I not that long ago bought fresh board from Waveshare with > > ESP32-P4 and the MCU was already obsolete by two major releases. This > > is exactly the thing we want to avoid in NuttX world.. thus our more > > conservative attitude :-) > > > > -- > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > >
