Ok, since we didn't hear from Espressif contributors and everybody agreed it is better to have a HAL under NuttX than under an external company, let's create it.
BR, Alan On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 2:48 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I agree we need a common agreement to implement such modification. > And today we are more divided about AI usage. > > But I agree we are discussing two or three separated things. > > Let's return to the main issue. First we need to know if the Espressif > contributors agree to contribute to a esp-hal hosted on NuttX side. > > BR, > > Alan > > On Wednesday, August 5, 2026, Matteo Golin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I disagree with the suggestion that those interested in exploring this >> path should just create a separate experimental project. In an open-source >> community, every contribution and idea is valuable, even if it introduces >> disagreement or ultimately fails. >> >> Yes, in spirit. This is why the idea is being discussed here. But >> ultimately, without consensus, we can't just have everyone's experimental >> ideas merged into NuttX to succeed/fail there. That is why we are >> discussing it first. NuttX mainline is not a playground for anything, >> that's why we take pains to ask for testing logs and get proper PR >> descriptions. >> >> The ESP HAL is used in many devices. One such device is my ESP32 based >> rocket altimeter. This altimer is responsible for deploying parachutes on >> my very expensive rocket. If that goes wrong, my rocket crashes and I lose >> a lot of money and time. I don't want to rely on an experimental, AI >> written HAL for this. I much prefer the iterated, strictly tested and >> maintained HAL by the company itself. A NuttX written HAL would need to be >> well tested, understood and maintained for me to want to make the switch. >> These changes have real consequences, and for companies much larger than >> just lowly old me and my hobby rockets. Keeping guarantees for users is >> the >> utmost concern and we always need to weigh that when considering options. >> We are unfortunately not free to just experiment with anything in mainline >> when we'd like. >> >> Matteo >> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2026, 12:52 p.m. Matteo Golin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > What Raiden mentioned is right: AI generated or not, this is something >> we >> > have to discuss with the Espressif maintainers. They are incredibly >> active >> > and keep our ESP support up to date. As much as I want our own NuttX >> HAL, >> > we have to decide if it's worth trading for the burden of having our >> own, >> > non-Espressif maintainers for it. I'm incredibly against the AI rewrite, >> > but at this time I would also be against a by-hand rewrite unless we >> > somehow get continued support maintaining it, either by Espressif or >> other >> > devs, at the level we get from Espressif right now. That kind of >> maintainer >> > work is super valuable to NuttX, which already has few maintainers. >> > >> > Also, respectfully, thinking that a new HAL rewritten to follow NuttX >> > idioms will have bit-by-bit identical output to the original ESP HAL is >> > wishful thinking. All kinds of things, including internal data >> structures, >> > will be different. Unless I am misunderstanding that proposition, that >> is >> > definitely not going to work as a testing plan for a new HAL. >> > >> > Matteo >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2026, 12:44 p.m. Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 4:27 PM Marco C. <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Let me try to explain the methodology so you can open your mind: >> >> > (..) >> >> > Open your mind. Peace. >> >> > Marco Casaroli >> >> >> >> We are open-minded Marco, very, it is highly unfair to say we are not. >> >> >> >> You need to take into a consideration that all NuttX related work is >> >> done in our free time at the expense of any other tasks sometimes our >> >> families and so called private human life. >> >> >> >> We are also people taking personal responsibility for the products >> >> development, its delivery, and maintenance. If things take too complex >> >> and too long to deliver we are out of business. If things fail on >> >> production we are out of business. If we are unable to maintain and >> >> service products we are out of business. This out of business also >> >> means measurable financial responsibility. >> >> >> >> Most of us are owners of the company, business, product. We have >> >> experiences that made us have solid stand on the ground and think the >> >> way we think. Its okay to play around and experiment, but its not okay >> >> to impose experiments on everyone around, like so called modern world >> >> does right now. We cannot build without solid foundations, when all >> >> components change all the time, including software and recently even >> >> hardware components. Its a big complex mess right now. We do not want >> >> to make it worse or even take part ourselves. This is clearly >> >> destructive. >> >> >> >> We can play around but then we need to provide alternative path to be >> >> selected, while foundations must remain rock solid, so people have >> >> choice. I understand you use free AI to create stuff, but in the end >> >> there are living humans paying bills daily that need to process that >> >> also for free in their free time. >> >> >> >> My proposition for the people with lots of free time is to create an >> >> experimental but separate AI NuttX rewrite and see how it goes. It >> >> should be a win-win scenario where we can cope with basic tasks in >> >> NuttX while the other project may explore new worlds. >> >> >> >> Peace :-) >> >> >> >> -- >> >> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info >> >> >> > >> >
