xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #20398:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/20398#discussion_r4143664031
##########
arch/arm/src/nrf54l/CMakeLists.txt:
##########
@@ -59,4 +59,55 @@ if(CONFIG_PM)
list(APPEND SRCS nrf54l_pminitialize.c)
endif()
+if(CONFIG_NRF54L_SOFTDEVICE_CONTROLLER)
+ set(NRFXLIB_VER "3.4.1")
+ set(NRFXLIB_DIR "${NUTTX_CHIP_ABS_DIR}/sdk-nrfxlib")
Review Comment:
> The problem the community has with HAL isn't about the API; it’s about
code control. In the case of a binary blob, there is no source code.
>
Does this mean we can use vendor HAL if vendor release the prebuilt binary
blob? As I said the key point is whether NuttX code call the binary blob
directly and then the binary blob need link with NuttX code to form the final
image.
This patch link libsoftdevice_controller_multirole.a, libmpsl.a and
libmpsl_fem_common.a into nuttx.bin directly, so it is no difference that if
other chip vendor (e.g. espressif) releases the vendor HAL with prebuilt
library and arch/xxx/espxxx link with them.
> Why consider certification for the project? Because without it, the
project is useless in most of the world. Most users don't have the budget for
full certification; using a pre-certified binary makes it much simpler and
cheaper.
As I said, you can do the certification with the binary what you want, but
the open-source project could host and modify the code as needed.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
