The high level picture is that automotive companies recognized the rapid rise of software in automobiles with a particular focus on infotainment systems. The traditional path was to build standards and allow a supply chain to build credible vendors (GENIVI). However, the world of information technology (IT) was able to lean over with platforms from the server (Linux) and cell phones worlds(android). This strategic thrust by open-source players into the automobile has been enormously successful. According to BlackDuck Software, open source components make up an average of 23% of automotive commercial applications. The base of this software is the infotainment system, but AGL, in particular, has ambitions to move into the instrument cluster, heads-up-display (HUD), telematics / connected car, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), functional safety and even autonomous driving. A very ambitious agenda.
“There are really only two choices emerging, either AGL or Android”, said Dan Cauchy, Executive Director of Automotive Grade Linux. “Many OEMs are choosing AGL because they can customize it to their liking, add their own branding, look and feel, add their own services, it gives them complete control over the platform. And now that AGL supports Instrument Cluster and HUD, they can consolidate the entire cockpit software into a single platform.”
As “Open Source And Automotive Safety Critical Systems: What Are The Tradeoffs ?” discusses, the move from infotainment to safety critical systems has definite challenges. These include:
Real Time: Automobiles work in the world of physics, so there are some real-time considerations. What does this mean ? When you hit your brake, you don’t want the action to be preempted by another process (like your radio). In 2009, Real-Time Linux was launched to build a real-time offering in the Linux ecosystem. Currently, QNX from Blackberry is a strong competitor, and there are large number of proprietary real-time operating systems available in the marketplace.
Functional Safety Certification: To be trusted, safety-critical systems must meet functional safety objectives specified by ISO 26262 standard. These include response to actions such as user errors, hardware failures, and environmental changes. QNX is certified at the highest level of safety. Given its development methodology, it can be difficult for a company to demonstrate that their Linux-based system meets these safety objectives. In order to address this issue, the Linux foundation launched the Elisa project in 2019. The project has the objective to define and maintain a common set of elements, processes and tools that can be incorporated into Linux-based, safety-critical systems amenable to safety certification.
The overall model remains that the automotive companies will consume the software and perform their own product validation, and ultimately they are liable for any safety issues. However, with the availability of a safety ISO certifiable real-time Linux, automotive companies have the opportunity to demonstrate that safety. The critics of open-source Linux for safety critical systems point out that the Linux is over 15 million lines of code and with contributions from thousands of programmers. How can one manage this complexity ? How does one assign liability ? Is it really free or does it take a great deal of resources to manage/track the community ?
On the other side of the ledger, the scope and breadth of capability is breathtaking — even elephant-like. Linux proponents claim that the sheer breadth and depth of the community provides a bulwark against bugs and cyber issues. Can this elephant dance ? Time will tell. However, if it does, the ants will definitely have to leave the dance floor.
Related Articles:
I am a seasoned scientist who has had significant roles in the world of academia, startups, and fortune 500 companies. Early in my career, I designed complex computer
I am a seasoned scientist who has had significant roles in the world of academia, startups, and fortune 500 companies. Early in my career, I designed complex computer systems as a CPU designer at DEC. They were very difficult to validate and the cost for failure was very high. Realizing the utility of solving this problem, I transitioned to become an executive at Cadence Design Systems where I ran groups which solved the validation problem. Along the way, I have successfully built startups in areas such as wireless power, machine learning, and low-power electronics design. Most recently, I have leveraged nearly 35 years of experience to build an academic research team which focuses on the AV Safety problem. I have a BS (1984) and MS (1985) from CMU and Phd from Harvard University (1994).