Hi all, I am against using AI to rewrite the code or to have a code fork maintained by us.
Even if those options look tempting we should consider the amount of work needed to maintain those ports and keep them in sync with new features that the vendor will implement. I know that it is hard to push our fixes to the vendor but maybe it is better if we try to open a conversation with the vendor and explain our issues instead of adding even more work on our maintainers. We should evaluate the ROI on a long term before taking a convenient momentary decision which may impact the quality of the project and the maintainers workload which is already high due to AI patches. Best regards Alin J On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 4:24 AM Nathan Hartman <[email protected]> wrote: > It's a difficult question. > > If we stay with Espressif's upstream, fixes we want may not get merged for > a while. > > If we fork their repo, the codebases may diverge and there's the question > of who will maintain it and the separate question of whether Espressif will > consider NuttX not to be a priority anymore because we're doing our own > thing now. > > If we write it from scratch then it will take an awful lot of work and > until that work is done it will be a big step backwards, since boards that > worked will stop working until the rewrite is complete, and there are those > radio bits that present a difficult problem. At least for the duration of > the rewrite/transition, we'll need to maintain a Kconfig to choose between > the NuttX internal HAL and the ESP-IDF. > > If it's rewritten with AI then there are valid concerns about AI slop, > license washing, and the ethics of energy use, noise pollution in towns > with data centers, ecological concerns, etc., and disagreement/friction > within the community about whether AI should be used for this. The > community issue is easily the most important concern here because this can > create a rift that could damage the community in a bad way. > > It's a difficult question. > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 7:09 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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> > > > > > > >
