Hi Alan, I think you are overlooking something: the hal_espressif under zephyr is maintained by espressif, there are no (non-espressif) zephyr maintainers doing merges. The same is valid for hal from other vendors.
If this method of working would be reflected in NuttX it would be just the same as we have today only the location will be different. As soon as (non-espressif) maintainers start doing merges, no matter how well intended, this could result in maintenance problems. Kind regards, Jehudi On Fri, Aug 7, 2026, 21:38 Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jehudi, > > I think you didn't understand the main idea, that explains why you thought > it was disrespectful. > > Our proposal is to have esp-hal-3rdp inside github/NuttX and not "make a > fork and take over maintenance". > > It is not a fork, it will be transferred to NuttX, to be maintained the > same way Zephyr/HAL is done there. > > Why is it better? > - Espressif committers will have write access to it the same way they > already have on esp-hal in espressif repository > - If Espressif employees are busy with other duties and can't review the > PRs, we can do it > - Since the original esp-hal was transferred to NuttX github, there is no > downstream issue involved > > BR, > > Alan > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 3:31 PM Laczen JMS <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Alan, > > > > All I stated was that the discussion was disrespectful to espressif > > maintainers: make a fork and take over maintenance, have AI rewrite it, > ... > > > > I agree that NuttX is probably not getting the same attention as zephyr > > from espressif. Just accept this. > > > > The NuttX support from espressif is among the best of any hardware > > provider. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Jehudi > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2026, 18:32 Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jehudi, > > > > > > First of all, I'm not disrespectful to Espressif or any contributor > from > > > there. > > > > > > So, when you are saying that I was not respectful to Espressif you have > > > been disrespectful to me! > > > > > > As I said before, Espressif deserves all our respect and consideration > > > because they are one of few companies to contribute to the NuttX. > > > > > > But you need to understand the employees from Espressif are not full > time > > > dedicated to support NuttX, they have other priorities and it is fine. > > > > > > If Espressif doesn't have many companies using NuttX with their chips > > they > > > are free to relocate these employees to work in other projects. > > > > > > And in fact one of the reasons that I decided to leave Espressif was > > > because they could relocate to work on Zephyr or other project that I > was > > > not interested in. > > > > > > The esp-hal-3rdparty is used only by NuttX, it is not used by Zephyr or > > any > > > other project, and as you can see it not maintained the same way as > > Zephyr > > > HAL. > > > > > > And I think now you touched on an important point: "they both start > from > > > esp-idf and then patches are applied", that is the idea our > contributors > > > can help to do it and avoid waiting a long time for a simple fix. > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 1:09 PM Laczen JMS <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > > > > > Why should this be under NuttX, what is the difference whether the > code > > > is > > > > under NuttX or under espressif. The maintainers would be the same. > The > > > > espressif_hal under zephyr is not maintained by zephyr maintainers, > it > > is > > > > maintained by espressif. The same is valid for other hals, they are > > > > maintained by the companies that provide the hardware. > > > > > > > > This whole discussion has been disrespectful for the maintainers from > > > > espressif, and the reason for bringing it up questionable (and was > > taken > > > > care of by espressif). Was this proposed PR even required, was it the > > > best > > > > solution, ... questions that are left unanswered. > > > > > > > > Regarding how the hal is created, as far as I know they both start > from > > > > esp-idf and then patches are applied. When a major release of esp-idf > > is > > > > done a major sync appears. I think this is a good method. Whenever > > > changes > > > > are proposed to the hal this method needs to be taken into > > consideration, > > > > preferably change a patch and not code. This is the only way we can > be > > > sure > > > > to have fast support for new devices. The same is true for the hal > used > > > in > > > > zephyr, although I think that there they are going to see a blowup in > > > > maintenance because they are changing code instead of patches. > > > > > > > > IMHO the best is to leave as is, give a gentle reminder when > something > > is > > > > stuck. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > Jehudi > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2026, 17:37 Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
