Hey there Alan, Most of the raised HAL related issues should be solved that way as proposed by Tiago and Espressif in this vote: 1. Code ownership and supply chain security (mentioned by Alin). 2. Community involvement in faster PR processing (mentioned by Felipe). 3. We should have more control and impact on the HAL quality and availability (mentioned by many). 4. HAL is under the NuttX umbrella just as proposed "Zephyr Umbrella Way" (mentioned by Renesas).
>From I understand Espressif offers to "donate" HAL to ASF to be apache/nuttx-hal-espressif and this seems the best possible win-win scenario. They don't have to do this but they want - big thank you! What obstacles do you see here? The vote here is about "Hosting Espressif HAL under Apache umbrella" not all HALs. We have perfect road paving here and good example for others. If we have problem with other HAL then we vote other thing. But why block good solution because of other possible bad solutions? We may one day consider Tiers as proposed by Michal and mentioned by Nathan (with FreeBSD): 1. Tier 1 - in tree code drivers. 2. Tier 2 - HAL that is under ASF and our control. <-- we are voting this scenario here. 3. Tier 3 - HAL that is external and out of our control (not rally welcome). Could you please reconsider your vote for this particular case / scenario that is being voted? It seems that Espressif listened carefully and provides best possible scenario :-) Thanks :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 3:10 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > > -1 > > As I explained before we cannot keep all HALs under ASF. > > BR, > > Alan > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 10:31 AM Tiago Medicci Serrano < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > After several discussions about HAL usage and community governance > > [1][2][3], we (Espressif) propose hosting the current content of ` > > github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty` > > <http://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty> under an ASF-hosted > > repository: ` > > github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` > > <http://github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif>. > > > > *What does it mean:* > > > > - `esp-hal-3rdparty` content is already Apache 2.0 licensed. > > - Espressif's CCLA allows us to contribute to a newly created > > repository: we would create a PR on ` > > github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` > > <http://github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif> with `esp-hal-3rdparty` > > content. > > - On the other hand, the org account on `github.com/nuttx` > > <http://github.com/nuttx> is not > > legally attached to Apache Software Foundation and, > > consequently, to NuttX. > > We can't directly contribute to it. > > - NuttX's committers will have (just like `nuttx` and `nuttx-apps`) > > write permissions to merge PRs on the newly created repository; > > - Espressif will support the community with HAL usage, including a > > comprehensive guide on how to update it so that any community member can > > send patches for HAL. > > - The discussion about HAL governance comes and goes, creating > > instability in the NuttX community among members, developers, and > > vendors. > > This is no longer acceptable and needs settlement. That being said: > > - `github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty` > > <http://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty> will no longer receive > > direct contributions for now. > > - The newly created `apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` - if the community > > agrees on that - will enable it to evolve and receive new > > contributions > > with more authority from the community. > > - On the other hand, native development is always an option if the > > community decides to keep supporting the devices on its own. > > > > *What it doesn't mean:* > > > > - It doesn't mean we are pushing NuttX to accept vendor HALs. > > `esp-hal-3rdparty` is a reality, and we want to empower the community to > > enable any NuttX member to directly work with it. > > - The discussion of whether NuttX should or should not officially > > approve vendor HALs is not related to this call for a vote. > > > > This seems to be a *Procedural Issue* [4], and a simple majority should be > > applied. The community is encouraged to vote. PMC members have binding > > votes. > > > > In that sense, my vote (Tiago) is *+1 *(binding) > > > > References: > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/gf4c3z4ds94lon91op4c6zmclqnwtvcf > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/nvnrf30jcdsxcrydmo2s95tdtlj8zvx9 > > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/bg74qn14rs9qwson5lzt0xjb4fvbqh6j > > [4] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting > >
