Hi, As mentioned earlier, https://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty/ is used only by NuttX.
Best regards, Em seg., 5 de out. de 2026 às 11:33, Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> escreveu: > Hi Tiago, > > I think we made a mistake when we said that Espressif had already signed > the SGA. > > That SGA was for software Espressif was contributing to the NuttX mainline. > > For the HAL, the situation is different. If Espressif signs an SGA for > their HAL it means Espressif is donating their HAL to ASF, the same way > Greg donated NuttX to ASF. > > By doing so, Espressif will not have rights over its own HAL (same way Greg > has no rights to NuttX now). > > Are you sure Espressif agrees on that? If so, Espressif and the Linux > Foundation need to agree that ASF will be the owner of the HAL. > > BR, > > Alan > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 9:58 AM Tiago Medicci Serrano < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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> > > > > <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> > > > > <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> > > > > <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> > > > > <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> > > > > <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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
