Hi, Just addressing the last comments:
1. We can't say anything about other vendors. This is how we proposed to host Espressif's HAL: under the Apache umbrella because we already have a signed CCLA. *Keep in mind that this call for a vote is about Espressif's HAL only*. 2. It's being contributed to a separate repository because: 2.1 It eases new contributions and new syncs being contributed by Espressif. 2.2 The HAL has its own coding style and contribution guide. 2.3 It makes it easier to implement native implementations and isolate them from the HAL. Please, keep voting on the proposed subject. Nothing else is being discussed here (we have other threads to discuss it). Best regards, Em sáb., 3 de out. de 2026 às 09:11, Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> escreveu: > Hi Tomek, > > These are the issues I'm seeing here: > > 1) If Espressif donates its HAL to ASF it means they will no longer own the > HAL (you cannot have your cake and eat it too). Is this acceptable to them? > > 2) Even if they accept this, other vendors probably will not accept > donating their HALs. In this case we cannot keep it under ASF. > If so, we would have to place it elsewhere, which would cause confusion: > why are some HALs under ASF and others in a different location? > > BR, > > Alan > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 10:27 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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> > > <http://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> > > <http://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> > > <http://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> > > <http://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> > > <http://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 > > > > > > >
