Hi Matteo, Exactly, that is what I was saying. They can contribute directly to a HAL inside GitHub/NuttX.
There are already contributors outside Espressif with great knowledge about their chips, they could contribute to this HAL without waiting days or months to get it on the HAL. I think Felipe Moura already found and fixed many issues himself, so it shows that we have users willing to help. BR, Alan On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 11:58 AM Matteo Golin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 1) Espressif always said it would conform to community rules; hence, why > we > > have been absent. The community must decide first, and then we can see > > whether the contribution is feasible. > > I think Espressif has at least done very well in engaging with the > community. As > I mentioned, you are responsive to raised issues even if recently there > have > been other things taking your time instead of patching them. > > > 2) We do not block contributions, and we never saw ourselves as 'owning' > > Espressif support in NuttX. We do have opinions, and we do try to > optimize, > > and we do listen to others. We actually expect more people willing to > help. > > Thank you, Tiago! I wouldn't say you 'own' it, but you are in our > CODEOWNERS for > all the Espressif devices because your reviews and understanding are > invaluable > for us merging patches. I think that you guys have done an excellent job > with > it, I don't think I've ever had to request changes on patches from the > Espressif > team. > > > Espressif already maintains the HAL of Zephyr (inside Zephyr repo), which > > is completely different from that esp-hal used by NuttX. > > Alan, I had no idea! I thought the Zephyr HAL was also built on top the > same ESP > HAL we're using. If this is true, then maybe with Tiago's internal > escalation > Espressif might be willing to help us maintain our own HAL? > > Best, > Matteo > > > Hi, > > > > I won't justify HAL, pros, cons, and such. I escalated this internally, > and > > I have some answers: > > > > 1) Espressif always said it would conform to community rules; hence, why > we > > have been absent. The community must decide first, and then we can see > > whether the contribution is feasible. > > 2) We do not block contributions, and we never saw ourselves as 'owning' > > Espressif support in NuttX. We do have opinions, and we do try to > optimize, > > and we do listen to others. We actually expect more people willing to > help. > > 3) So far, the discussed options were: > > > > - Total AI rewrite (I assume at the register level). > > - Fork, taking it from there - maybe going Zephyr style. > > - Replacing HAL slowly, piece by piece. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Tiago > > > > > > Em sex., 7 de ago. de 2026 às 09:27, Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> > > escreveu: > > > > > Hi Matteo, > > > > > > I think you summarized it very well. > > > > > > Tomek, Nathan and Alin, I think you are missing an important point: > > > > > > https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/hal_espressif > > > > > > Espressif already maintains the HAL of Zephyr (inside Zephyr repo), > which > > > is completely different from that esp-hal used by NuttX. > > > You can see it by looking at the history, they submit commits mostly > > > daily, including PR from esp-hal maintainer that are there but are not > in > > > ESP-HAL repo. > > > The only reason that esp-hal exists is because we (including /me as > > > Espressifer at that time) knew that NuttX was not open to using a HAL > like > > > Zephyr was doing and will not create a esp-hal for us. > > > > > > It could sound ironic, but maybe it makes more sense for NuttX to use > > > Zephyr HAL directly, at least we know they are taking care of it. > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 4:28 PM Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> These are all true points. I also think the decision about the ESP > HAL was > > >> made before my time, so I wouldn't know if there was a vote or not. > That > > >> shouldn't stop us from conducting proper votes going forward, though. > > >> > > >> For the record, I'm on-board with the fork that we can submit patches > to. > > >> This is actually a similar approach my rocketry team takes with NuttX; > > >> they > > >> have a custom fork to get their own driver stuff in so they can > continue > > >> development, and then submit the drivers upstream when they are ready > to > > >> go > > >> through the re-formatting/review process to make them better. I am > pretty > > >> certain Xiaomi also does this, and of course PX4 is similar. It seems > like > > >> a fork is a good idea for us here, because it's a buffering point for > us > > >> to > > >> get the benefits of our patches before they get up-streamed to > Espressif, > > >> if ever. > > >> > > >> Laczen is right that we would need to figure out where to host the > fork > > >> and > > >> who will maintain the fork (i.e. do we even both spending CI > resources on > > >> it or just continue with the NuttX CI and take up-stream backports at > face > > >> value with the expectation that Espressif CI has tested them). In > terms of > > >> formatting, I think we should keep whatever formatting method > Espressif > > >> has. If it's a fork external to the kernel then there is no need to > comply > > >> with the NuttX style guide for now, since re-formatting would make > > >> back-porting changes a nightmare. If we ever transition to replacing > parts > > >> of the HAL within our own kernel tree, then we can format according > to the > > >> style guide. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Matteo > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 3:02 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> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > -- > Matteo Golin >
