@Michal I do not consider a problem the vendor leaving the HAL unmaintained
since the same may happen with a board ported by a developer
which leaves the project and the board is unmaintained.
That's true, though it's easier to fix some bug in the code written
directly for NuttX than in 3rd party HAL, even if you didn't used that
MCU before. I can relatively easily look into other MCUs code in NuttX
codebase and add a new feature or fix a bug, I don't think I can do it
in 3rd party HAL. At least not without bigger time investment.
But hosting HALs under NuttX/ASF as you and Binh Nguyen propose could be
a good middle ground. This repository can follow some common rules so
different HALs wouldn't be completely different and we would have some
control over it.
Michal
On 9/24/26 10:18, Alin Jerpelea wrote:
Hi all,
after reading both sides I tend to agree with both pros and cons so maybe
we can find a middle ground
if we host an vendor-HAL repository under NuttX, which is co-maintained by
NuttX committers and the vendor representatives
- we gain more hands
- better integration
- ability to share concerns and drive the change
- provide guidance and maintain an unified ecosystem for all vendors
This would require that the code is transferred to ASF with a SGA from each
vendor and the licenses are granted as Apache 2.0
From NuttX side
- we should be transparent this this is a vendor driven initiative and
unmaintained HALS will be marked accordingly
- each HAL should have at least 1 assigned vendor maintainer added to a
maintainer list for Q&A topics we can not handle
Long term we can increase the vendor HAL list and provide better
integration with vendor HW since we lack the manpower to
port all HW to NuttX while new HW offering grows every year.
@Xiang Xiao <[email protected]> I agree that if we want to increase
NuttX adoption among industry we should adapt and provide an easy
integration option
both for vendors and integrators.
@Michal I do not consider a problem the vendor leaving the HAL unmaintained
since the same may happen with a board ported by a developer
which leaves the project and the board is unmaintained.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 10:06 AM Binh Nguyen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Michal,
I agree that relying on a vendor-controlled repository would create this
risk.
That is why I propose hosting the HAL under the NuttX organization. Both
the vendor's code owners and NuttX committers would have review and merge
rights.
If the vendor stops maintaining the HAL, the NuttX community would still
have the source code and authority to continue maintaining the version used
by NuttX.
This also allows NuttX-specific fixes to be reviewed and merged without
depending entirely on the vendor's priorities.
I believe this model offers a practical balance between community control
and vendor-supported long-term maintenance.
Do you think this model could help reduce those risks?
Best regards,
Binh Nguyen
On 2026/09/24 07:42:57 Michal Lenc wrote:
I have a different opinion here, how to integrate with the chip
specific
code it's better to decide by the chip vendor or maintainer.
But that would mean we need to rely on chip vendors to keep maintaining
the project. What if the company decides to abandon the HAL and focus on
different projects/priorities? This happened many times in the past and
will happen in the future, company's priorities and goals can change
over time. The maintenance will then remain on us, NuttX developers, and
we can't maintain the MCU if it's not even in our codebase.
Or what if we need some changes in HAL because of NuttX codebase, but
these changes will be rejected because the company wants to go in a
different direction with the code. There are multiple possible issues
with it and we are such strong project to be able to dictate the way how
the HAL should be implemented.
BTW, the community already allows Espressif and Realtek to implement
the
port on top of their HAL, why do you forbid other chip vendors to do
the
same thing?
And imho it was a mistake we allowed it and there is no reason to repeat
it. I understand the company's perspective, it even benefits NuttX in a
short term, we get support for new chips faster and easier after all,
but managing multiple HALs is a nightmare in a long term. Even now
fixing bugs in Espressif HAL is a longer process than it would take if
everything would be in NuttX core repository.
Michal
