I'd support that spproach. For example, I am currently dealing with practically same peripheral drivers for NXP chips; arch/arm/imx9 and arch/arm64/imx9 have duplicates of the drivers for exactly the same SoC. arch/arm/imxrt has also the same peripheral drivers, 3rd time. So having something like drivers/<vendor> (lower halfs), arch/cpu (cpu architectures) and arch/chip (SoC specifics/integration) would make integration much cleaner. As an intermediate step, everything doesn't need to be harmonized, there could be different versions of the same drivers initially so that nothing breaks. But structure change would make a lot of sense.
- Jukka Xiang Xiao kirjoitti perjantai 2. lokakuuta 2026: > From the discussion, the major concern of vendor HAL in Zephyr is the code > duplication for the same IP. > But in NuttX, even the native chip integration still duplicates a lot of > code which share the same IP. > Should NuttX driver integration switch from arch/chip/xxx to driver/xxx/yyy > like Linux/Zephyr? > So, the chip could share the code if they use the same hardware IP block. > > Thanks > Xiang > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 4:12 AM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Ahmed, > > > > I think the issue you raised is valid; they have an enormous number of > > developers because the project was promoted very strongly starting in 2016 > > when it became part of the Linux Foundation. > > > > However, having fewer people doesn't mean we should take the easy way out > > and end-up in the same quality situation they are currently facing. > > > > In fact it is better to have less supported hardware, but a few very well > > supported ones. > > > > So, I was trying to accept the idea that the HAL was good for NuttX, but > > after reading that thread, I think it will be the opposite. > > > > Vendors will add integrations with poor HAL quality and we will inherit > > responsibility for that bad code. > > > > BR, > > > > Alan > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 4:47 PM Ahmed Ashraf <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I read a bit from the discussion, so they want to make the drivers native > > > implemented right? > > > > > > I think this will be easier a bit because they have a nice number of > > > specialized maintainers for each area, iam a bit new contributor to > > Nuttx ( > > > and to Zephyr too ) I didn't see that number of contributers in Nuttx > > which > > > could make it harder. I think making specialized groups of maintainers > > for > > > each area ( just like Zephyr do ) would make the migration easier. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Ahmed > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2026, 10:23 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > While we discuss making HAL official on NuttX, the Zephyr project is > > now > > > > discussing avoiding it: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/108088 > > > > > > > > I think it's too late for them, but we still have a chance... > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > -- Lähetetty Sailfish-laitteestani
