|
|
|
|
|
|
by gherkin0
3882 days ago
|
|
|
Cars are life-critical systems. If GM half-assed it by putting... > a potted Beaglebone Black (for its real-time subsystem) ...into an actual production car, what happens when the thing breaks down and kills someone? Death, recalls, lawsuits, and massive brand damage. > This point is actually kind of moot because for a long time the ECUs of cars were located in the passenger cabin with wires fed in through a grommet in the firewall. Even in the passenger compartment, cars aren't exactly friendly environments for electronics. They have large temperature swings (from a controlled climate to very hot in summer or very cold in winter). So putting it in the passenger compartment doesn't necessarily moot concerns over withstanding extreme environments. |
|
|
What I'm suggesting is that things like higher sampling rates of input sensors and more composability and reusability can be realized by a newer, more standardized and open approach to hardware.
I would also wager that the outcome of failure would be the same as with the traditional systems. GM shifts the blame onto the ECU development shop that it contracted out to make the hardware or software, or the QE shop that failed to pick up the failure.
Vehicle electronics are typically rated from -40C to 125C, although it's seen that they routinely fail even inside these margins. The BBB for example can have an operating temperature from -40C to 85C. There are also plenty of industrial boards that meet or exceed the requirements of automotive operating environments. Companies such as TI are (in part) releasing development boards (such as the BBB) to try to inspire innovation in these environments. The dev boards themselves aren't rated for it, but the platform can be.