Felipe your fix is now merged, thank you Tiago! :-) https://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty/pull/13
Sometimes all you need is just as a friend for help :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 7:02 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Laczen, > > That was what I asked in some previous emails, but it seems like they are > not looking at our mailing list, so I'm copying Tiago (the repo maintainer). > > As he already explained in the issue from June, he is very busy with other > high-priorities duties at Espressif. > > Tiago, if you had time to read this discussion, please let me know whether > it is fine for you to submit a contribution to our HAL fork? > > We understand that Espressif has its own agenda and maybe NuttX is not a > priority, but I believe that an open-source project should have the right > to move on without being blocked by that same agenda. > > BR, > > Alan > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 3:48 PM Laczen JMS <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't think it is a good idea to quickly create a fork. When a fork > > is created some expectations need to be clear: > > > > 1. Who will maintain it and ensure that new devices are added, > > 2. What are the rules this fork should comply with (e.g. code formatting), > > > > Why not first set the rules (if any), and if there are no (if we agree > > so) ask the current maintainers of esp_hal_3rdparty if they would also > > do it under nuttx (cfg zephyr). > > > > BR, > > > > Jehudi > > > > Op do 6 aug 2026 om 20:02 schreef Felipe Moura Oliveira < > > [email protected]>: > > > > > > Unfortunately, I was not here when the dependency on Espressif's > > 3rd-party > > > repository was added. I tracked it down, and it was introduced in PR: > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/8816. > > > File: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/17f7f6e86d9c045df53c65213d0c83487746d61d/arch/risc-v/src/espressif/Make.defs#L40-L59 > > > > > > At that time, I was not on this mailing list. Could someone from that > > > period check if a formal vote was held regarding the adoption of a kernel > > > dependency on an external repository? > > > > > > If no vote was conducted back then, creating a fork of the 3rd-party > > > repository and bringing it under the NuttX organization will correct this > > > point. > > > > > > > > > Em qui., 6 de ago. de 2026 às 14:43, Matteo Golin < > > [email protected]> > > > escreveu: > > > > > > > I believe it would still be a code change, since our fork will diverge > > and > > > > it will also presumably be used instead of the ESP HAL in the kernel at > > > > some point. I just think the vote would be useful in case people > > disagree > > > > with the fork approach. It also a rather major change. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Matteo > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026, 1:35 p.m. Felipe Moura Oliveira < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Since creating a fork of a repository and initially using it "as-is" > > does > > > > > not involve any actual code modifications, would a formal vote ? In > > other > > > > > words, we aren’t change any code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *--Felipe Moura de Oliveira* > > > > > Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/felipe-oliveira-75a651a0> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 at 13:09 Gregory Nutt <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Apache votig rules for code changes work differently. See Votes on > > > > code > > > > > > modification > > > > > > in https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Basically all > > voting > > > > > > members have a veto right and can stop any code change. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it is important to get concurrence before the vote or, at > > least, > > > > > > assure that no one is dramatically opposed to any code change. > > This is > > > > > > where you get to use you people skills and power of persuasion. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2026 8:51 AM > > > > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Discussing the governance of NuttX’s esp-hal-3rdparty > > > > > > dependency > > > > > > > > > > > > Hold on Alan, I think we should have a vote on it. I also think it > > > > needs > > > > > > some more discussion to decide on a way to approach making the new > > HAL > > > > > > since there seems to be some opposing views about forking, making a > > > > > custom > > > > > > one, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > It hasn't been very long since we opened this thread, maybe we can > > > > reach > > > > > > out to our Espressif contributors directly to ask them for comment > > in > > > > > case > > > > > > they did not monitor this thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Matteo > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 11:02 AM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > *--Felipe Moura de Oliveira* > > > Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/felipe-oliveira-75a651a0> > >
