Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
MClayton200
User Rank
Author
Re: Why not separate OSes?
MClayton200   1/11/2014 12:38:27 PM
NO RATINGS
Great comment on contention risks with common OS for entertainment and safety software.   Also, the driver assist evolution process will vary greatly vendor to vendor, as fully autonomous vehicles evolve as well for special locations and vehicle types.  

Standards organizations will pay attention to issues like isolation of safety systems and software from entertainment systems and software including perhaps hard isolation of associated hardware.  So Qualcomm should have someone deeply involved in European, Asian, and American car safety standardization efforts I would think.  Events (nasty ones) will drive the standards folks, so early adoptors with get arrows in the back, mud in the face, like all pioneers.  But saving lives and repair costs with fewer accidents can be low hanging fruit.   Example:  Tesla battery fires made big news...but gasoline cars explode very often with no news, so are batteries safer long term...since passengers have time to get out?  Media focus impacts standards as well as real problems.

krisi
User Rank
Author
Re: Competition is heating up for automotive
krisi   1/6/2014 7:18:52 PM
NO RATINGS
Very good point @Larry...I change phones every 2-3 years, cars 6-10 years...Kris

LarryM99
User Rank
Author
Re: Competition is heating up for automotive
LarryM99   1/6/2014 5:44:17 PM
This has been suggested before, and I still have the basic problem with it that I am not necessarily willing to pay for a separate "phone" for my car. I would much rather have it use the external connectivity provided by the handset in my pocket. This is particularly true given the mismatch in lifetime between a phone and a car. What they really need to do is provide a modular standardized socket into which I can plug a network interface, be it Bluetooth, Wifi, or cellular.

JeffL_2
User Rank
Author
Why not separate OSes?
JeffL_2   1/6/2014 1:07:23 PM
It puzzles me, if the car itself already has 60 to 100 ECUs, why a single OS needs to support both ADAS (which is completely safety-critical) and IVI (which obviously isn't)? It's not even clear that they ought  to be running on the same core. I don't think anyone will want to see vehicle safety compromised if the app running the access for Spotify (for example) crashes! As Toyota found out the hard way you can land yourself in big trouble when you start cutting corners in an automotive safety environment. It could be that someone is thinking "oh no, if they're on different processors we'll have ANOTHER interface 'standard' between cores that the individual OEMs won't be able to agree on" but that's WAY short-term thinking that will eventually come back to bite everyone on the rear end. As someone with quite a bit of experience with safety-critical software development to FAA-approved standards, hard real-time coding for safety in aviation applications requires that the code execution be strictly deterministic, so you're prohibited from using most of the popular object-oriented languages which have features that are problematic in this regard like late binding or heap management, not to mention "certifying" which of several classes evaluated a particular expression. I'm not saying that the automotive standards will necessarily be that strict but I doubt that infotainment programmers will want to put up with the other requirements like independent code certification and the schedule delays that imposes, maybe even going as far as requiring each compiler to be certified as a "qualified tool" for safety purposes. Safety is not and never was free or easy, and that's not just an opinion.

JimMcGregor
User Rank
Author
Competition is heating up for automotive
JimMcGregor   1/6/2014 12:33:17 PM
NO RATINGS
It appears that most of the mobile SoC vendors are setting their sights on automotive. However, beyond the infotainment and control, the car will also become a key hub for managing communications and data. Thus, wireless connectivity will become just as important as in handsets, and just as in handsets, it may determine the victors.



Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST

What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.
Like Us on Facebook
Special Video Section
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
05:27
The LT8602 has two high voltage buck regulators with an ...
05:18
The quality and reliability of Mill-Max's two-piece ...
01:34
Why the multicopter? It has every thing in it. 58 of ...
Security is important in all parts of the IoT chain, ...
Infineon explains their philosophy and why the multicopter ...
The LTC4282 Hot SwapTM controller allows a board to be ...
This video highlights the Zynq® UltraScale+™ MPSoC, and sho...
Homeowners may soon be able to store the energy generated ...
The LTC®6363 is a low power, low noise, fully differential ...
See the Virtex® UltraScale+™ FPGA with 32.75G backplane ...
Vincent Ching, applications engineer at Avago Technologies, ...
The LT®6375 is a unity-gain difference amplifier which ...
The LTC®4015 is a complete synchronous buck controller/ ...
10:35
The LTC®2983 measures a wide variety of temperature sensors ...
The LTC®3886 is a dual PolyPhase DC/DC synchronous ...
The LTC®2348-18 is an 18-bit, low noise 8-channel ...
The LT®3042 is a high performance low dropout linear ...