There is a day of polemical talks by Thanissaro Bikkhu on this topic here (scroll down). Part 2 is about Emptiness in the Suttas, part 3 is about the Abhidhamma and Nagarjuna, part 4 is about Perfection of Wisdom, part 5 later Mahayana, etc. I'm interested in the question so took some notes, here's a paraphrase of his narrative and argument if anyone wants:

In the suttas emptiness comes up in 2 different ways. First as something positive: in meditation, the absence or emptiness or stress, so in you incline toward states of more and more emptiness, relying on less and less. Second as something that makes you disenchanted: an attribute of objects, that they are faulty, crappy, empty, nothing you would want to cling to. The image here is of the magic show--the sly magician is making beautiful images appear, but with wisdom you can see through it, that it's empty, just a trick.

Paraphrasing: The Mahayana argument was that people were attached to things because they thought there was an inherent existence in things. Thanissaro says we're attached to things not because we think they have inherent existence but because they do things for us. The BMW gets us where we want to go, and it impresses the neighbors, so there's craving for it. Even if it's not real, even if it's not perfect, well it's better than not having it, let's buy one. From the point of view of the earlier teaching, you learn that it is actually more stressful for you to have it, it feels better to do without it if you can (thus monks get to not have cars, get to not have sex, it's not that they're denying themselves something great but rather that abandoning these things is greater happiness).

The Abhidhammists weren't satisfied with the aporia in the suttas where the Buddha doesn't answer if there is a self. In order to make a definitive non-contradictory statement, they say there are two levels of truth: conventional is that there are selves, ultimate is dependent origination. Nagarjuna points out that this method actually introduces more contradictions than it solves, showing a dead end of reliance on views. He takes the two-level structure and changes the terms: now dependent origination is conventional emptiness, while ultimate emptiness is the complete non-reliance on views. You take apart a view, and then you take apart the tools that you used to take apart that view, as they are themselves only views, and so you are left without anything to hold onto. With nothing to hold onto, you let go, and you have realized total emptiness. For example, lust is actually clinging to the idea that the object exists, that you exist, and that the lust exists--lust is not clinging to sensual pleasure because there is only one kind of clinging, clinging to views. (see previous paragraph for TB's critique of this argument) Nagarjuna doesn't mention the Boddhisatva path, it is regular Hinayana where giving up clinging leads to the ultimate, except that now logic is everything. He uses the same image of the magic show as in the suttas.

In the 8,000 line Pefection of Wisdom, discernment is seeing emptiness, and emptiness is the non-arising of dharmas, and you get there through intense devotion, non-dual consciousness. In the 25,000 line version, it includes also the lack of self-nature from Nagarjuna, leading to state of no views, but since the way to see the lack of self-nature is by attending to the arising and passing away of dharmas, it doesn't sit well with there being no dharmas. Thus there is recourse to the two-level structure of truth for a third time, where conventional is lack of self-nature (arising and passing away), and ultimate is no dharmas. But the statement that there are no dharmas is an ultimate view of the nature of reality, so it doesn't fit with Nagarjuna's rejection of all views. (not to mention it is about devotion and not thinking, while Nagarjuna is all about detailed logical analysis)

Later Mahayana writers will try to reconcile these. Also, the magic show image changes: dharmas are an illusion, a magic show, and in reaching non-dual consciousness, you see through the illusion. But in order to reach other people, you make use of these illusions, because there is nothing else, so you become a magician.

Anyway, thus according to Thanissaro Bikkhu.